0 Building Your Brand

This post about building your brand in my series about the first element of the Circuit Questionnaire, you and your brand.  These posts will soon be assembled in a logical and coherent fashion.  In the meantime, read and enjoy them as they are!

My brand stands out because it is political. If you are building your brand you may wish to copy me in this respect but would that be wise?  Being political is not a good idea for a business and indeed some business support networks do not allow political or religious bias. So, why a political brand?

You see why branding is important? It is partly about me and how I convey my experience and what I have to offer. But it is also about how I want to be seen. I’m seeking lasting transformation of society and so seeking people who seeking similar change.

I am at the centre of my brand. If I am successful and find I have a legacy, other people will take my place. They will be there because of my brand.  Brands evolve naturally and so,n the distant future, they may be able to trace a line back to me, even though I would not recognise what they are doing. Would I approve of what they’re doing in my name? Possibly not.  Would Mr Kipling (if he existed) think the cakes sold under his name today are “exceedingly good”?

So far I’ve written about my brand but I haven’t said what it is! Here are my notes from a few months ago under questions from the circuit questionnaire:

What does my brand stand for?

Money flowing in the local economy is far more important than personal wealth. So, I aim to change the mindset, encouraging investment in localised economies and discouraging offshore accumulations of vast sums of money.

The first sentence is crucially important to understand my political position. Note this is not opposition to personal wealth. It is a statement about the nature of money. Money’s value is through its use to build community. It builds community as it changes hands and so the flow of money is where our focus should be.  When money accumulates it is not put to work building community.

This has profound implications for the ways in which we understand our roles as participants in the economy. The decisions we make have profound effects on the economy. Wealthier people have more power and so more responsibility. This is why integrity is an important personal value and why transparency and accountability are paramount political values.

What does it stand against?

Goliath is the corporations and the political system that has handed so much of the country’s assets to them.

Need to resist this mindset from (1) a pro-business perspective because businesses keep money flowing, and (2) community associations who care for their place and tackle disadvantage.

We elect governments to protect us against the power of large unaccountable corporations. When we find governments are selling out to them, not safeguarding our interests, then there is a need for a greater democratic input into politics. I believe this will come from an alliance between community organisations and local businesses. Businesses and their customers, if you prefer.

In what ways is my brand contentious?

Capitalism has been a boo word on the left for many years but it is true there has been no more democratic approach found. The communist experiments in the twentieth century demonstrated the dangers of enforced solutions.

There are capitalist models of the left. The old retail co-operative movement is a brilliant example of how bottom-up economic approaches can co-exist with massive corporate systems. Is there a modern alternative, equivalent to the retail co-ops? I think there is and I blogged about an economy for the common good recently.

2 Creating an Economy for the Common Good

The retail co-operative movement and its associated mutual experiments, was for a time a parallel economy for the common good to the dominant liberal economy of the Victorian era.

It challenged not only the mainstream economy but also the stream of socialism based on trade unions and centralised state ownership. It offered collective ownership as an alternative to private and state ownership.

This model not only flourished but initiated many institutions that are today foundational to the mainstream economy. Sadly, the government privatised many of these institutions; privatisation has absorbed not only nationalised industry but many mutuals. Its grip on the economy and our imagination is far greater than the so-called threat of communism achieved.

From the perspective of the twenty-first century, communism was never an alternative to capitalism.  The Soviet Union practised state capitalism and trade union based socialism in Britain was an accommodation to the capitalist economy and not a genuine alternative to it.  The difference between twenty-first century businesses and the days of trade union power is the decline of large industry.  It is hard to see how unions could regain the power they once had without these large employers.  Large companies these days are not employers but accumulate capital.  Perhaps these differences are a matter of degree but trade union decline cannot be fully reversed by a more favourable legal environment.

Change Everything

It is hard to envision an alternative to the prevailing neo-liberal model and that is why I welcome Christian Felber’s new book, “Change Everything: Creating an Economy for the Common Good”. Here at last is a credible alternative!

The Economy for the Common Good is an international movement, originating in Austria. Felber’s book is the first time his thinking has been available in English. In it he describes a framework for a new understanding of the economy; moving from “the business of business is business” to “the purpose of business is the common good”.

It is important to understand Felber is not promoting a single model for the economy but a different standard any number of models can address. This standard attempts to overturn the neo-liberal mindset, which sees competition as central, to a worldview based on co-operation. I’m planning to review this book over several posts. In this first post, I shall make three comments, reflecting my concerns about his approach. They are not so much criticisms as attempts to show where there may be difficulties.

I want to promote the book as I cannot possibly, in a few posts, do justice to the ground it covers.  These comments may assist a critical reading.

Co-operation happens already

One of the lies about the neo-liberal model of the economy is business depends solely on competition. Felber claims competition is less effective than co-operation and I would go even further.

Felber includes a chapter of examples of the economy for the common good from all over the world. These are valuable and important and I plan to write about some of them soon.

What I don’t think he dwells upon fully is how even neo-liberal business depends on co-operation. Competitive ideology undermines business because it is naturally collaborative. Successful businesses collaborate. Many small business owners flounder because they believe the politicians and think they are in a cutthroat competitive environment.

Too much business collaboration is behind closed doors. Many scandals are where politicians are swayed, where relationships become way too cosy.

So, with the neo-liberal worldview collaboration can become counter-productive but for most small businesses it is a natural route to a prosperous business. Good businesses put business in the way of other businesses; they help one another to grow.

Felber’s values would place business collaboration in the service of the common good and not primarily for private profit.  He does not rule out private profit but moves it away from being the main point of economic activity.  Many entrepreneurs might embrace Felber’s approach because it offers a more supportive environment than the neo-liberal model with its aim to centralise economic activity in a few powerful hands.

An economy within an economy?

Felber’s approach is admirable because it could in principle replace the prevalent neo-liberal model. It’s certainly possible, after all in the immediate post-war years, neo-liberalism was the preserve of eccentrics. Owen Jones describes in the first chapter of his book, “The Establishment“, how these peripheral eccentrics developed the dominant ideology of our time.  Now we’re the eccentrics, up against powerful vested interests.

The reality is, for a time at least, the two worldviews will co-exist. This is much as it was for the co-operative movement. For all its successes it never broke through and ultimately lost out to the uneasy alliance between capitalism and a trade union based socialism.  We can see now this version of socialism was not really an alternative to the capitalist system but an adjunct to defend the interests of workers within the system.  This unstable alliance ultimately collapsed when neo-liberalism became dominant during the 1980s.

Never underestimate the power of dominant ideologies to colonise opposing worldviews, just as mutual businesses have become neo-liberal businesses.  Another example is the domination of the Christian faith by the Roman Empire.  Constantine bought into Christianity because he believed it would help him win wars.  That ideological struggle continues to this day at the heart of every church congregation.

A Worldwide Movement for Change?

Is it really credible that a worldwide movement can usher in a new approach to the economy over the entire world? It is a tall order and I hesitate to even concede it is possible.

I think we need to look again not only at the successes of alternative economies but also at their failures. Why did the co-operative movement lose out to the conventional economy, to the extent it largely disappeared in the 1980s UK?

It’s worth asking how far we can go without dismantling the neo-liberal systems? It may be essential to dismantle them but what happens if they persist? What if the vested interests are too powerful? What can be achieved under those circumstances?

Understand I ask these questions to strengthen the movement. People need to see immediate benefits if they are to commit to this approach. Each person who commits weakens the old system and so the advantages of a parallel economy need to be clear.  I shall return to this theme in the future, especially to explore how the Internet can support this parallel economy.

The Challenge to Privacy

Many people fear what happens if Felber’s models are too full on. What if our economic systems imply a society where differences are not tolerated, where everyone knows everyone else’s business?

This appears to be a concern among those living in alternative communities and it is something important to take seriously. Why?

Because the last socialist experiment was a civil liberties disaster. Granted it was state capitalism, capitalism by other means. But it is always true in human systems that freedom and equality can be opposed.

Felber’s approach is attractive because there is no single model. Small businesses can still exist, offering independence to their owners and they can choose the extent to which they adhere to Felber’s framework. This allows perhaps sufficient wriggle room to allow substantial freedom in a world where there is greater equality.

Freedom and equality are not natural givens and they need to be understood and defended.  What do you think?

2 Representation 3: Community Planning

Last Wednesday, I continued describing my three functions model for community development, with a second post about representation:

This is the third of three posts about representation:

1. Provide a meeting place
2. Generate and record deep conversations
3. Agree a community plan

The Maltby Community Plan

Community planning in Rotherham started after the 2000 Local Government Act, which set up Area Assemblies (the name of these varied from place to place – does anywhere still have them?) and directed all Local Authorities to prepare a community plan for their borough.  This was to be used by the Local Strategic Partnership to govern planning across the Local Authority area.  (If you think calling a borough-wide plan a community plan is misleading, I agree!)

In Rotherham, the Local Authority decided to base their community plan on local plans and they identified 60 distinct communities within the borough.  I’ve no idea whether they actually achieved this but full marks for ambition.

The Local Authority plan and the local plans were different types of document.  The former had authority and set the framework for local partnerships.  The local plans expressed as far as possible a local consensus for developments in their neighbourhood.  The Local Authority decided what to include from the local plans in its borough plan.  Residents could still work from their own plans at partnership meetings.

The Maltby By-Pass

Shops in High Street, Maltby (during a quiet period!) (David Martin) / CC BY-SA 2.0

I developed the first of Rotherham’s local plans (this is what most people would call a community plan) in a small market town called Maltby.  One incident  illustrates the confusion between local and borough plans.  I circulated a draft local plan, which included a well-argued case for a by-pass to take heavy traffic off the town’s high street.

An irate phone call, from the Council’s Highways Department, complained they had not agreed a by-pass for Maltby.  They were annoyed because the chapter was well argued and they wanted to know who had written it.  I was reluctant to tell them the author was the owner of a chip shop on the high street!

Highways had misunderstood the purpose of the local plan.  It would be filleted by the local authority to contribute to their borough plan at a later stage.  The plan expressed the consensus of the local people and it is relevant to know they want a by-pass and why they want it.  How the strategic partnership might respond to their plan is another matter entirely.

The Power of the Community Plan

It is equally important for local people to understand the status of their plan.  No external organisation can be bound by what amounts to a sophisticated wish list.  The power of the local plan is in the extent to which it represents the views of residents.  If local people meet and discuss the issues that affect their community then their local plan carries more weight with partners.  I estimated we consulted with at least 400 people to prepare the plan.  Out of a 10 000 population, do you think that is a credible sample?  We could show it was a diverse group of people.

Without a plan it is hard for local representatives to make a credible case to potential partners.  It provides a mandate for community activists but it has no authority for anyone else.  As such a community plan is essential for residents if they want a say in local planning.  The next post will explore negotiation of local plans.

Leave a comment if you have prepared a community plan.  How do you use it?

0 Finding a Unique Business Identity

Last Monday I wrote about my unique vision for my business. No organisation sets up without a purpose and so they all have a story. That story is important because it shows the world how what you are doing is unique.

Many voluntary organisations have mission statements, aims and objectives. These are lovingly presented on their website but the sad fact is, however worthy they may be, they are without exception deadly dull. Do you read them?  Maybe on occasions you want to engage with the organisation but for most people a story that explains why you exist and offer what you offer is far more effective.  Many organisations need help finding their unique business identity!

It can be helpful to ask:

What is utterly unique about my business?

I find this question helpful insofar as it sets the scene but it is not easy to answer. The Circuit Questionnaire offers a few additional questions that may help you think it through in greater depth. Here they are with indented answers for my business from a few months ago, followed by further comments:

What can no competitor ever claim?

Unique combination of experience in community economic development, strategic management, non-directive consultancy and online campaigning and marketing.

I’m aware of the financial constraints many small organisations and businesses experience and my approach helps them set up systems at a modest cost, integrating the work of volunteers and staff.

Complete the statement, “I am the only… that…”

I am the only web consultancy that supports the local economy, specialising in supporting voluntary organisations and small businesses online.

As far as I am aware I am the only community development worker who works online, offering an online service and helping groups and businesses integrate their real life and online campaigns.

When I started my offer was website design. It soon became clear many potential clients do not need a website. They want to run a campaign and a website may be part of that. Their campaign and its outcomes is what they want.  They need the support of a development worker who can help them integrate online with their offline work.

In what ways are you in a category of one?

I have the time to develop an online resource to promote localised economy, so building community with those who are working towards real transformation.

This answer focuses on my why. I offer a community development service because my vision is for the particular  types of community I want to see. Ideally my clients will be among those people who see value in my vision.

Is there a particular phrase that you could OWN?

“Community Development Online”;

“Thriving Marketplace in Every Neighbourhood”

I used the first on my old website and I don’t think it appears on my new site. It does actually say a lot in three words and maybe I should find a way to reintroduce it! The second appears on the home page as the main heading.

I decided to kick off my site with my vision, which is on my home page. Visitors are then introduced to my free ebook offer and later encounter my online service.

What would your business look like if you could magnify your brand to the highest degree imaginable?

Online community of communities where the widest possible range of experiences can be pooled. Such a community in time might invest in localised economy experiments, finding practical ways to help particular markets become viable.

I would like to develop this further, as it does not fully express my vision. I’m seeking a means to promote a real change in the way we structure our economy and this will have global implications. I shall write more about this over the coming months.

If you had a massive investment tomorrow, what would you do?

This question is immensely powerful and a bit of a headache. Usually it specifies a sum of money, eg £10 000 000, which is way too much. I would prefer something like £100 000. Does the higher figure help me think big or does it decontextualise my thinking? After all I’m not ever going to have that sort of money to spend.

When people encounter this question they think it is about money. It is about vision. Many organisations allow their cash flow to limit their imagination. They set their budget to what they have in the bank and not to what they want to do. Once you know what to do and how to cost it, you have a target for your fund-raising.

If you can answer this question, you may find elements of your answer are not cash dependent. If you allow available cash to limit your imagination, you can’t be sure it is censoring only those things you think you cannot afford.

Here are my answers from a few months ago:

Purpose of Money

I would use an injection of cash to invest in what I believe in. I’ve included some constraints, which perhaps illustrate how easy it is to allow your thinking to be curtailed by money.

Money exists to enable community, to build relationships. Business people recognise this and the successful ones are great at building relationships. What happens when community organisations apply this approach?

Many local initiatives need financial support but there are dangers, particularly with grant aid.  So, whilst I stand by the principle of local investment, I need to explore this in greater detail. This will help me find the best ways to invest locally and be a resource for clients.

If the barriers to your vision were removed, what would happen?

I would have a team of people with a clear vision about using small-scale funding to achieve big things. We would spread the message and open up an online resource for everyone interested in localised economies.

I’ll stand by that for the present but there’s a lot more to do!

0 Five Elements for Your Marketing Campaign: Your Market

This is the final element of the five found in the Open Source Marketing Circuit Questionnaire. Apologies for the delay, owing to my recent hardware meltdown. I have since made a start on a more detailed exploration of you and your brand.

The last post in this series, introduced the fourth element, the Problem. This time the focus is on your Market, which is the people who are likely to buy from you.

The aim of the five elements is to help you think about your business at a deep level. The order in which you think about each element depends on the nature of your work. This order is the order in the circuit questionnaire and follows a logical sequence. However, many people may find a different order works for them.

The pattern I’m using is to describe the element in the circuit questionnaire, show how it can be used in marketing a cause and then use my business as an example.

Market

Identifying your market can be the most difficult step any business owner takes. I’ve certainly found it hard and I’m still not satisfied I have fully defined my market. However, here are a few guidelines.

First, there are two essentials all markets must share, whether you are selling a cause, a product or a service.

People Who Value Your Offer

You want to find people who value what you have to offer. There is no point in designing a marketing campaign to appeal to people who will never respond to your message.

If you have a cause, you will want to find people who are sympathetic to it. You may wish to persuade people who have never thought about your cause, that it is worth their support. There is little value in trying to change the minds of those who have already decided they do not agree with you.

People Who Can Afford Your Offer

The second essential, if you are selling something, is your market must be able to afford it. If you charge a lot, this does not mean you necessarily cut your price, but are you sure there are enough people out there who can afford it? If you don’t want money, this might mean you have a bigger market but remember if you make demands on time, for example, this may exclude some people.

Three Dimensions for Every Market

Every market had three dimensions. They are independent of each other; the characteristics of one do not necessarily correlate with the others.

1. The first dimension is demographics. Can you define your market in terms of their age, sex, race or religion? This category may also include less obvious characteristics such as class, employment, hobbies, health.
2. The second dimension is your market’s beliefs and values. This may include their politics or religion, for example. So, we can see these characteristics are independent of demographics. We can imagine a twenty year old white man and a sixty year old black woman who are both supporters of the Green Party. The reasons why they share these values may be very different but they might both sign petitions and attend demonstrations.
3. The third dimension is their awareness of your cause, product or service. Let’s say your cause is to ban fox-hunting. The 20-year-old Green Party member may not have given it any thought and so has never supported a ban. He might respond if he can be persuaded to support it, so if you want him to support it, you need to persuade him. The 60-year-old woman may be enthusiastic about a ban but not know what she can do to support the cause. She doesn’t need persuading and might lose patience if you attempt it. But she may value a list of actions she could take in support of it. The younger man would simply not be interested in the list of actions unless you can persuade him of the cause. You can find out more about this in my post about the awareness ladder.

My Market

Here is a one sentence definition of my market, written a few months ago.

Local business owners or leaders of community organisations who started with a vision for transformation of their place but have lost track of it amidst the pressures of keeping the show on the road.

I believe this statement describes people who believe in my cause, the local economy and are likely to have the wherewithal to purchase my services.

There is little in the way of demographics because business owners and leaders can occupy pretty much any demographic. Their belief or value is their vision for transformation of their place. Perhaps I could mention the local economy here. They must know that they have lost sight of their vision through the pressures of keeping going.

My primary weakness, shared with many businesses, is that I don’t really know my market well enough. This is OK. You learn more as you get to know your market. I fully expect this definition to evolve as I make more contacts and discuss my offer with more people.

The value of the circuit questionnaire is that it encourages you to explore your business in-depth and by returning to it, to deepen your understanding of your business. It is the opportunity to revisit it that makes it such a valuable tool.

0 Representation 2: Deep Conversations

Last Wednesday, I started to develop my three functions model, by exploring representation in-depth.

This is the second of three posts about representation:

1. Provide a meeting place
2. Generate and record deep conversations
3. Agree a community plan

Many groups have problems encouraging conversations even though they can get people together. Understanding conversations is essential for community development online as well as off and so I have written about them in some detail.

With BCAF (Burngreave Community Action Forum) we managed to bring over 60 people together once a quarter for many years.  Why did they attend these meetings?  They cared about their neighbourhood and its development.  They also turned up to socialise and share in a good free lunch.

So, what did BCAF do?  In the early days, we sat people in rows and invited decision-makers to address the meeting.  They were willing to come out on a Saturday morning because they knew they would get a good-sized audience.  But these meetings became tedious.  They often went on for far too long because everyone wanted a say following each presentation.

The problem was conversations were not taking place in any depth.  Contributions from the floor were often a view already formulated before the presentation.  Other people came to complain about something and introduced it when they could, unrelated to the presentations’ contents.

Eventually we worked out people needed time to talk in groups and after experimenting with buzz groups and break out groups we eventually worked out we would be better off sitting people in groups for the entire meeting.  This reduced time moving between groups and helped buzz issues between presentations.  (Tables also provided somewhere to balance plates of food!)  There are drawbacks, most notably difficulties for the hard of hearing but on balance it’s the best way we found.

Groups can be supplied with hand-outs and flipchart paper with pens.  The latter allows for written as well as verbal feedback.

A lot more can be written about this approach and I’d like to hear whether you have used it and with what results.

Conversations in a Community Cafe

But what about conversations in a community café?

The first thing to note is conversations will take place all the time.   People can be invited to complete a brief form with contact details and a brief account of their issue, idea or concern.  This may be something they bring to the café to share as a concern.  Or maybe something arising from general conversation and that’s worth sharing.

If you have a local concern and want to canvass views, it can be outlined on notice boards or a stall.  People might be invited to complete a questionnaire or leave their contact details if they wish to support a campaign.  People might be invited to discuss an issue at their tables at publicised times .  This would be an opportunity for key people to listen to conversations.  Or key people can circulate at any time and ask a table if they would be willing to discuss their issue.

Participative appraisal (PA) is a helpful approach. It is a number of tools, mostly pen and paper, with a philosophy of deep listening.  This enables any participant to ask questions and involves everyone; their voices not drowned by the more vocal.

The layout and history of your centre will help you work out how to canvass views; simply try things to find out what works.  But what if you want to take things further and agree a community plan?

Leave a comment and tell me about your experience of community planning.  I’ll offer some tips next time.

0 What Makes Your Business Unique?

Last Monday, I answered the question: why do I do what I do in two ways. I’m still searching for a definitive answer because this task is never complete; our businesses and other organisations evolve as our understanding of what they offer deepens.  One question you can ask about your business is: what makes your business unique? What makes it stand out from everyone else’s?

If you can find something no-one else can copy you are in a good place.  It may be easier than you think.  A business that only you can offer because of your unique skills and experience may be similar to some other people’s’ but it may be distinctive enough to appeal to a market that prefers your offer to everyone else’s.  This may be a sound starting point for a small business and the circuit questionnaire will help you plan for a bigger enterprise not dependent solely on your own skills and experience.

So, here’s my answer to the question, what would my Community Web Consultancy be like if I could take its mission or identity to the ultimate level? Naturally, whatever I write will evolve as my experience deepens but this is what I think now:

My Ultimate Business

An online community of groups committed to developing their local economies. They come together for mutual support, learning from each other’s online and offline experiences and regular online conversations about local economic models and how they can be supported online.

From this community some would be keen to grapple with the practicalities of transforming the local economy. They would take part in:

Conclusion

This is about the future, the general direction in which my business might develop. Building an online community, investing on other businesses and becoming a mutual. As my business develops I’ll revisit these ideas and see how they develop.

0 The Living Wage or Citizens’ Income?

We live in a welfare state and the major recipients of welfare are the Corporations. It’s the rich that get the money and the poor that get the blame.

The Corporations pay low wages and expect the state to top up their employees’ wages through tax credits. There’s a similar scam with housing benefit. Employers set wages just like landlords set rents and both expect the state to make up the difference.

The Living Wage

So, the Chancellor has impose restrictions on tax credits. He also claims to have introduced a national living wage, by which he means a version that will not upset the corporate lobbyists.  This so-called national living wage is really an inflated version of the minimum wage.  The living wage is supposed to be a wage where a family lives without benefits.  This new level of the minimum wage does not fully compensate families for the loss of tax credits.

You see if the Chancellor wanted to introduce a genuine living wage, he could offer financial incentives to businesses, to help them pay it. The government could means test businesses compensate them if they genuinely need help.  The Corporations would need to use their offshore accounts or bosses’ bonuses to find the difference.

It would be interesting to explore the consequences of businesses going cap in hand to the government. Why should employees accept the blame for their employers’ stinginess? If employers had to make their case directly to government to receive benefits to subsidise their wages, it would be a massive increase in accountability.  They would have to pay at a rate equal to or more than the living wage set by the low pay commission.  I suspect most Corporations would find the money.  It would be small businesses that would need to the financial support.  And why not?  With the level of subsidy for businesses overall reduced, the state would assist small businesses creating jobs in the local market.

The Small Business’s Dilemma

Without help, many small businesses would go bust if the living wage were compulsory. Let’s say someone opens a coffee shop and employs one person on the minimum wage. That person currently claims tax credits which helps them pay their bills.

The business owner meanwhile lives on drawings from the business, which often means they live on their savings.

One claim about the living wage is if everyone received it there would be more money circulating in the economy. In theory this means more people would have spare cash to buy cups of coffee. Increased pay for the employee is a fixed amount going out every week. Increased takings depend on factors that cannot be guaranteed. Even with more money circulating because everyone is on a living wage, it’s no guarantee the coffee shop would break even.

This is the dilemma facing many small local businesses. Whilst Corporations grumble about paying the living wage, they have more capacity to accommodate such changes.

The idea of grants to businesses who pay the living wage is one possible approach. It would save government money by means testing businesses. The Corporations would need to redeploy some of their offshore profits. It would be very clear they’re the beneficiaries of government subsidies and do away with the illusion it is the poor who are to blame.

Citizens’ Income

A living wage is certainly an attractive model because it would make the Corporations accountable. The alternative would be citizens’ income. Here everyone would receive a payment irrespective of whether they are in or out of work. In work, all earnings are taxed. Employers would be obliged to pay a minimum wage because when people have some income, they are less likely to accept low wages.  The government could set the minimum or leave it to market forces to work their usual magic (usually not a good idea).

Citizens’ income resolves a lot of issues for small businesses because their staff are subsidised already.  However, citizens’ income subsidises corporations unless they contribute to it.  So, tax businesses on the number of people on their payroll and allow them to claim tax credits if this tax means genuine hardship.

Living Wage or Citizens’ Income

Citizens’ income does achieve a lot of what we need, ending welfare dependency and getting money flowing in the economy. However, is it able to make the Corporations accountable to the government in the same way as a compulsory and subsidised living wage? It’s big advantage for local businesses is simplicity, they would have no administration and would not need to apply for grants to subsidise their pay.  (I’m assuming my idea of taxing businesses to pay for the Citizens’ Income is not on the agenda.)

Whilst there is a need to debate these two approaches and understand their relative merits, do not forget one thing. The whole system supports the interests of the Corporations. They will resist both approaches because the current system of unaccountable subsidies for Corporations from the state suits them fine.

0 Representation 1: Unstructured Meeting Space

In my last post, I described my three functions model.  The next step is to explore the three functions.  Here they are:

You need to do three things (covered in this and the next two posts) to develop representation in a neighbourhood.

1. Provide an unstructured meeting space
2. Generate and record deep conversations
3. Agree a community plan

For over 10 years the area where I live had a Forum.  It was called Burngreave Community Action Forum or BCAF.  It met once a quarter on a Saturday mornings and at least 60 people turned up.

This approach has financial costs if you’re going to do it properly.  You need to pay for a leaflet through every door, backed up by posters and announcements in local papers, etc.  A free lunch also helps, it is an opportunity to socialise and maybe some people turn up for the lunch who wouldn’t otherwise.  BCAF also provided childcare and a translation service.

Wyverstone Community Cafe

Any neighbourhood wishing to develop community needs a meeting place.  Quarterly meetings are one possibility.  Another might be a community centre with a café.

Think in terms of “unstructured meeting spaces”, where people can meet without an agenda.  Some community centres offer rooms for hire but no space where people can grow community.  Even more worrying are neighbourhoods with no meeting spaces at all.

Roles for Unstructured Meeting Spaces

So, what might you aim for?  It’s likely your centre will need to pay its way and so I’ve included some suggestions for paid activities.

So far, I’m describing how a neighbourhood might bring residents together.  But how do you generate and record deep conversations in a coffee bar or indeed any meeting?  Let me know what you think and I’ll offer my suggestions in my next post.

1 Finding Your Why

Last Monday I asked, Why Do I Do What I Do? Today, I shall explain how I arrived at the answer I offered last time. Why? Because through using my business as a worked example, I will show how anyone can plan their business or community venture. Following my journey may help you with finding your why.

Here is the answer I offered last time: Why do I do what I do?

You will see there is a difference! It’s not that I’ve abandoned this earlier version; indeed both offer a  perspective on what I do. This earlier version focuses on my offer. The later version on my values. The later version does not explain what I do and the earlier does not explain why I do it!

I have doubts about the second bullet in the earlier version because I need to explain how I help clients when the responsibility for their site is theirs.  I need to be clear about what I am seeking in a client. If they really do not understand my perspective on web design I may find it difficult to work with them. However the key is building trust and for many clients, if I start by working with them on their objectives, they are happy to follow when we get onto a website, whatever their understanding of web designers.  The problems are usually where they have a long-standing relationship with an old-school designer.

Conclusion

So, I am a community development worker who offers support to organisations planning online campaigns fully integrated with their offline activities.

This does not necessarily mean working on a website. One of my clients is unlikely to work on their website with me; their aim is to find partners who can help promote their resources.  A few years ago, this would have been a developmental role but today there are many online strands to their work as there are offline.

This insight has emerged from writing this post and I shall make some changes to my website as a result of it. The work of marketing is continuous and incremental. Mastering the circuit questionnaire and constantly reviewing it is helpful to any business.