Recently in Business and industry Category

After hearing about another misquoting incident in the local media I thought I should share a similar incident which also happened recently, to a classmate of mine.

A few weeks ago I reported that one of my classmates made it to the quarter finals of L’Oreal’s EStrat, a global marketing simulation contest. I scanned the article and congratulated him on his Facebook wall.

The part where he’s mentioned and quoted, is:

Mr S— M—, an Indian international and a semifinalist of EStrat, said that the competition gives him the chance to experience a real-life marketing challenge.

“It will be a great asset to add to my resume,” said the student at Insead, a post-graduate business school.

He thanked me for the info and added:

But I am surprised to see the comments in the news paper, I never told them what they have written.

They called me and this is what I told them “The idea of stepping into the shoes of a General Manager, having to manage a portfolio of beauty brands and facing marketing situations and challenges was an extremely appealing idea. We know that joining this competition is one of the best ways to glimpse what makes the world’s foremost beauty company tick and get hands-on experience in the business.”

I can understand if a quote has been slightly rephrased, or some words have been removed or re-arranged… but this seems to be very different from his original statement. Good that he kept a record in writing, so we can have a side-by-side comparison of the original statement and what was published in the end.

It could have been lost in translation, if his quote was given to the PR department or PR agency and then passed to the journalist. But we thought it’s unlikely that PR reps of a global company would warp the original statement so much. There’s no benefit to them changing it. The article was, however, one in a series on job searches, thus the rephrased quote fit better with the theme.

This is the second time a classmate of mine has been misquoted in the press. The first time, I had the impression that an incoming classmate sounded a little naive. Later she told me that these words were suggested to her so that it would fit better with the theme of the article; it wasn’t what she really wanted to say.

Perhaps ‘misquote’ in this first case isn’t the best word but I’m seeing a pattern - a need for quotes which help the article to flow well. Of course, not everyone you interview may say what you want, and if time’s short, why not rephrase it? However, news reporting should be non-fiction. If you want to change a statement drastically, I’d think you should contact the interviewee to discuss this, especially if you’re publishing their name.

I am fortunate that all the journalists who have interviewed me have been very professional - they check back with me before modifying my quotes, they are familiar with the topic at hand and ask good questions. Also, to be fair to journalists (having worked in a newsroom before) I’ve seen how some reports can get modified out of their control, literally from black to white. I don’t intend to point fingers at particular people because this seems to be happening too often, which means it’s not a ‘specific person’ problem but possibly an underlying problem with the system - incentives, procedures, hierarchy… There are a lot of other factors we may not know about - that’s what I’ve been learning in business school.

Later I’ll write a separate blog post to share my own experiences, and maybe we can all have a constructive discussion on what we can do to improve the situation.

While preparing my Organisational Behaviour presentation on stereotypes, myths and truths about our respective countries, I found myself collating more negative than positive points about being Singaporean. Actually, my groupmates and I took turns to talk about pros and cons of each of our countries, so we would have a balanced view. Still, my slide sounds more critical than others’, so far…

While begs the question: Do Singaporeans tend to be too critical of ourselves?

Had a great gathering at Geek Terminal this evening for Bluestocking’s StepOut event for women entrepreneurs. I told my INSEAD classmates about this and 5 of them managed to make it. So the mix was a little more international than usual.

Geek Terminal is looking very good after its renovation. Things started well from the beginning. Firstly, there were COCKTAILS! We could each try 5 different blue cocktails and the most popular flavour would become the Bluestocking cocktail.

Three lady entrepreneurs shared their experiences about starting their own businesses: Ms Goh Yiping (President, World Indigo Inc); Ms Virginia Cha (CEO, WOVE Holdings Ltd) and Mrs Kim Faulkner (CEO, Activiste Pte Ltd).

Yiping was the youngest but had a great location-based idea which intrigued my fellow techy classmate Reene, who gave her a contact who might help publicise her idea. I like my classmates precisely because they are helpful and share information willingly.

Virginia speaking

Virginia spoke of her experience doing business in China, and added that her story became an INSEAD case! There were other interesting details to her story that we didn’t get to hear. However her advice was sensible: Don’t go to China thinking you can do everything your way, because it’s very different from the rest of the world. Instead, feel the pulse there and go with the flow.

Kim speaking

Kim shared her interesting life story and how her business was bought up by a famous global company. She mentioned her experience as a consultant, and turns out she was from the same consultancy as one of my classmates, Eline! So it was a small world indeed. My take-home point from her was that wherever we work, our personal brand or reputation stays with us. It’s something important that we must maintain.

After the speeches were over, it was time for some audience participation. True to the theme, our activity involved standing behind a line and stepping out when we disagreed or agreed with a statement involving women doing business or generally cutting our own paths in this world. I and a few of my classmates got to air our views.

I discovered talent among my friends. One of my classmates, Anna, turned out to have a very astute cocktail sense, detecting a missing ingredient. Also I was suitably impressed with Coleman’s coffee making and decorating skills.

Woot! ;-)

Thanks to Raine and friends for a most wonderful evening, and to Danny and the team at Geek Terminal for making us feel at home!

Lately, there has been lots of interest in ‘green’, sustainable energy. However, many of us are going green for less than altruistic reasons. As Barack Obama put it during Al Gore’s endorsement of him, the former Vice President had done much to raise awareness of climate change, but “there’s nothing like US$4 a gallon gas to get your attention.”

Going green today means saving greenbacks, and - oh, incidentally - the environment. From a practical point of view, as long as behaviours are changing it shouldn’t matter, but ideally we should also understand how our consumption habits affect the world around us. Education is important, but so are the societal norms with which we live by.

As a motorist, I’ve seen my own petrol bills increase over the past year. Previously I paid just over S$40 for a full tank of petrol. Now I’m paying S$70-80. I wondered what the Americans were so upset about - we’re still paying more than they are. But they have to travel longer distances and have been accustomed to relatively low prices. And they have a weak economy and dollar to grapple with.

Similarly, I’ve heard laments about how Malaysian petrol is subsidised while Singaporeans pay the full price. But I agree with our National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan that ‘cutting petrol duties and giving out subsidies are not the answer to soaring global oil prices’ (source). We should modify our own lifestyles first. It would however be nice to see examples of how some of our own leaders are doing this.

Rich Singaporeans who flaunt their wealth by driving big cars can jolly well foot the bill instead of complaining. I’ve found it ironic that some who can afford to buy a car would jam up the roads waiting outside ERP (Electronic Road Pricing) gantries just to save a dollar. Car manufacturers should also think twice about flying their hybrid cars across the world for celebrity clients.

Of course, in other cases it’s not so clear-cut. Parents may drive an MPV or a SUV to ferry their brood about. Others may depend on mobility for their livelihood. Some of us can make changes more easily. As a student, I took a school bus or car-pooled with neighbours. If my parents couldn’t fetch me home - no big deal. There was public transport.

If things get too costly for me, I’m prepared to move back to public transport as well, even though it takes more travelling time. For years I’ve wanted to switch to a Toyota Prius or another hybrid car, because I was interested in using less fuel (and also because I am a geek who wants to hack it). However, the earlier models were expensive and out of our budget, although in time it would’ve paid us back in savings. It was too difficult for me to justify. But now, surging petrol prices are making such solutions more attractive for many of us.

We aren’t in want of technology. There are a myriad of green solutions and incentives, depending on the unique nature of each region. In California, where some of my relatives live, those who drive a hybrid car and have obtained a licence, may drive on the ‘Diamond lane’ which breezes them past other lanes with heavy traffic. This has led to a huge demand for hybrid cars, particularly the Prius.

There is also greater civic awareness of the importance of reducing waste, such as cutting down on electricity and water usage. Some of these initiatives bring about cost savings, but to practice this consistently also requires an active citizenry which I find strong in many Americans, and dormant in Singaporeans - to say the least.

But of course, California has its own set of problems. For one, its public transport system is less developed than ours, which is why many citizens feel handicapped without a car. Another issue is public safety. Once, I wanted to take the public bus so as not to make my relatives drive me downtown, but was warned not to as it was dangerous. So we in Singapore have some things to be thankful for.

Similarly, there was a big issue in Singapore about supermarkets charging for plastic bags, whereas in other developed countries it has long been normal to bring your own bag, or pay for one. It is good to have campaigns promoting re-usable bags, but the day we no longer need a campaign for something is the day we have succeeded.

Change is not impossible. But beyond inventing new green solutions and policies, we have to change our own attitudes first. It is probably our ‘kiasu’ mentality, general lack of awareness and ingrained apathy about how much difference our actions can make in this world, that has contributed to demands for short-term solutions.

[Disclaimer: I am still a public servant, at least for the next week or so. However my job has nothing to do with petrol prices.]

My fellow Media Socialists Ben Koe and Walter Lim are quoted in today’s Digital Life article on Web 2.0 for companies. I won’t copy the full article, but here are the myths that were debunked:

** MYTH 1: Web 2.0 technologies are fine for building social networks, but they are not relevant to my business.

MYTH 2: I don’t want my employees using social networking tools in the office because productivity will fall.

MYTH 3: My employees are used to working via e-mail, so there’s no need for these new Web 2.0 collaboration tools.

MYTH 4: My company is too small to take advantage of social computing and Web 2.0 tools.

MYTH 5: It is difficult to manage social computing tools because they are too unstructured. **

My take: Web 2.0 is more than just a technology. Setting up the technology today is actually the relatively easy part. Building a successful Web 2.0 app or community requires a mindset change from within, first.

Examples abound. You may start a corporate blog because ‘everyone else is doing it’. But you’re afraid of publishing negative comments, or think it is a chore to reply to them, not understanding that a blog can facilitate real conversations and garner genuine feedback.

You may love control, and want to build your own social network instead of using existing networks - where everybody is already at. Web 2.0 is all about collaboration. You don’t have to own everything to get the most exposure for your brand.

Or, you can build numerous Facebook Apps, but as over 120+ other Apps are launched every day (and growing), you are lost in the sea of anonymity.

Many organisations are leaping onto the New Media / Web 2.0 bandwagon, but not always for the right reason. If it is just to make you or your organisation look ‘cool’, time will reveal whether your actions will reap any meaningful rewards.

And if you jump onto it expecting immediate returns on investment above everything else, you have not fully comprehended the nature of social media. Treat everybody as your friend and not some soulless cash cow; tell them things they are interested in. Keep in touch with them regularly - don’t go to them only when you want something out of them.

New media / social media / Web 2.0 technologies are not an end in themselves. They are enablers and facilitators; a means to an end. They can make it more obvious which organisations are more open and sincere, and therefore more prepared for the business of the future.