From government controlled currency to branded economy.

If loyalty is essentially a currency to the brand, then maybe it’s time to rethink if money is absolutely the only currency for consumers to purchase products.



There is a restaurant which you could eat at even if you don't money.  You could pay by helping out in the restaurant - cleaning, washing, serving - where the currency that matters is your time.

Our ancestors might have gotten it right long time ago, bartering could be a viable option before money was centralized by federal governments.  And if the accumulation of money and domination of wealth by 1% of the world population is creating a lopsided economy and tonnes of other social problems, then wouldn't it make sense for the other 99% to start consider creating their own micro-economy, especially in countries which are hard hit by poverty?  So what is so bad about exchanging some cabbage for a free ride to work?  Or like Nike - some sweat for new kicks?  Or cleaning for rice?

I call this innovative economy - where brands are as big as some governments, this idea is really not so far-fetched after all.

The evolution of Man: What CAN we become?

Once upon a time, shortly after the completion of our social research on eco awareness, The Green Chronicles, we propagated that producers/manufacturers should not stop their consumer purchase cycle at 'consumption' but at 'disposal'.  When it is put into their mandatory action list, I am very sure it will drastically change the way products are planned and launched (think cameras, think smartphones).  If manufacturers are responsible for products at the disposal stage, then we will have better quality products with longer 'usage' life and a more sustainable eco-system of consumption.

While I shopped at H&M last weekend, that's one brand which recently launched a global awareness campaign on their sustainable recycling strategy.  Simple: Bring in your old clothes and trade for discounts for new ones.  Old clothes will then be recycled into materials which will be used in manufacturing new ones.  This practice now has a label and it's called EPR - Extended Producer Responsibility.  The whole point is not to mindlessly put new stuff into this world - we need to seriously consider how to 'delete' them from our system.  There.  Are.  Just.  Too.  Much.  Stuff.  In.  This.  World.  Seriously.

Now, you may not think much about this tiny little extended marketing program, but assuming the best that ALL manufacturers in this world were put in place to ensure sustainability in their product life cycle; then the first most immediate visible impact would be: NO LANDFILL.  This world will have no more landfill.  If you can't think of a way to dispose and/or recycle your products sustainably then you can't produce.  Period.  Simple as that.  Imagine, a world with no landfill.  NO LANDFILL.  No more rubbish dumps in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that spans for kilometers in diameter.

Watch the video below to get the picture.

p/s: If you're reading this and are in the business of production, please, I beg of you, consider this epic insight.  As starters, I'll even volunteer my time to discuss possibilities if you need an additional thinking buddy (consultation thereafter is chargeable though, ha ha ha).  Well I'm serious, really, think about it.



Obviously, I'm not the only one propagating.  More reading: You see Garbage, I see Value: Let's make the recycling business a no-brainer.

The issues of price and morality.

Is there such a thing called 'just price'?  A pricing level that has a moral dimension, which does not include excessive profiteering.  Long ago in the 13th century, that's what philosophers thought when religion was so prevalent in the local culture.  The elements of Christianity and 'sin' went beyond what was obvious which is politics to a more hidden dimension - economics.  A 'just' price should include some form of profit that should not be excessive because avarice is considered a sin.

A very interesting take indeed.

One could almost see how religion was treated as a true cornerstone of the society especially to settle the dispute of different opinions.  The common ideology was that if we can't decide which one of us is right, then let religion decide what is the common good for mankind.

Pros and cons.  While I understand the noble intention of religion but in reality, it's much more complicated than that.  Some economists believe that the society itself will determine the 'just' price.  If the price level was too high, people will automatically stop buying thus forcing it to come down.  So if left to society's own antics and decision, even the participants of economies follow the principle of Darwin - the survival of the fittest, which in this case - is the survival of the richest.  Because once the price level is set, anyone who falls below that 'affordability' level will not be able to enjoy the product and/or service.

Something to really consider when setting the price for 'common good' products no?  Think medication, think eco-solutions, think education, think health care, think water, think electricity.  Only if you come from X level of income background would you then be able to enjoy basic necessities, better education and health services and even to a certain extent, eco solutions.

No right, no wrong.  But a very interesting perspective.  Thoughts?

Why you should never mash religion with politics and finance.

I spent two hours watching Zeitgeist: The Movie today.  I've always been sceptical with edited films - bits and pieces of information edited by someone with a strong point-of-view.  Given the same footages, through the hands of someone with a totally different perspective, tells a different story.  The uncanny skills you pick up from being in advertising.

Anyway, I still hold scepticism although yes, it seems like it makes a lot of sense.  At the end of the day, who knows what the truth is?  We all like to believe, we'll finally find it when we die.  Or when this age dies.  Well, until then, what can we do except to live responsibly as a human being?  And be accountable to one another?

One major take-out that I have to thank film director and social activist, Peter Joseph is this: NEVER ever mix religion with politics with financial goals.  These are important pillars in building a society, or a nation as a matter of fact, or any organisation for that matter.  But when you mix them together, you get pure potent evil.  Money controls government controls what the people should believe in.  Then it's a downward spiral of mass destruction for everyone.  Even those who are 'in control' because one thing we can be sure of is, there's no such thing as immortality.

If you think this only happens in America, you're wrong.  It's everywhere.  In your own country, and perhaps even your own organisation.  Since I'm in no governmental position, I should only make brand-related inference.  Brand philosophy should always stand alone, uninterrupted by the financial guys, undeterred by operations.  Yes, it's a fine line especially between operations and finance but they should always be governed and treated separately.  Each its own entity, for fear one takes over the other.  When you start losing control of these three pillars, you lose three wonderful visions.  You only get one.  And that's the one driven by money.

Cost of punishment versus cost of prevention?

Well.  As you can see.  Blank.  I have no answer.

But my previous post on rising vigilantism in Malaysia has really got me thinking.  Logic tells us, surely the cost of prevention is a lot lower than the cost of punishment (total cost incurred related to crime).  But I really want to put a figure to it.  Because nothing convinces us better and harder than seeing black and white numbers straight up in our face.  Nothing helps us crystallize solutions better than hard facts.

So, I'll need any help that I can get.  If you could just kindly point me to available resources (Malaysia or best practices on international shores), that would be deeply appreciated.

Who commits the crime, where, when, how and most importantly why?  It's so easy for us to generalize criminals as 'immigrants' but yea this is public perception but does it help the solution if we're so polarized?  So who else?  Poor people?  School drop-outs?  Who?  If we could intervene when they are 5, we not only spend less public funds on punishment but we're able to prevent hundreds and thousands of crime unfolding a decade later.  But before we decide the point of intervention, we need to know, exactly 'the point of intervention'.  What if they are not Malaysians?  

Much much much appreciated.  Thanks in advance :)

The Royal economy.

3 billion – Estimated TV audience (40% of the world’s population!)

327 million – Estimated number of Royal wedding related photos to be taken on digital cameras!

26 million – Estimated sales in £s of Royal wedding merchandise

5 million – Estimated cost in £s of policing the Royal wedding

1.1 million – Number of people estimated to be visiting the capital

1,900 – Guests invited to the ceremony

They call it the wedding of the century. OR a fairy tale wedding. Hang on, didn't they say that about Princess Di's wedding? Look what happened to the fairy tale. They should give this royal couple a different spin instead. Like 'fresh hope' or something :P

This wedding is pure economics and a great opportunity to rebrand the royal British family (especially after years of bad press and London's current lacklustre economy). If you really think about it, it is an awesome PR campaign for British tourism as they prepare to host approximately 600,000 tourists arrival for this event that will add approximately 30 to 50 million pounds to London's economy. And imagine the mileage that will go on and on and on after that. The trinkets, the memorabilia, the many times you hear *kaching!* because of this royal wedding. It is estimated that 20,000 people will pay 300 pounds upwards just to get a glimpse of the couple. Kaching! Kaching! Kaching!

It's amazes me to see the brand power of one royal family. While laymen are willing to 'buy' into this marketing frenzy, what exactly is the brand promise? Forgive my nonchalance, but I might have missed it. The camera flash must have blinded me.

*Stats from here and here.

The Malaysian Economist - Muruku Ikan Popo.

I saw this Popo's Fish Muruku at Isetan today. Yup, ISETAN. Other than the super old skool packaging design which I totally dig, something else caught my eyes.

Fine print reads: Jika sesiapa melaporkan kepada syarikat kami tentang keluaran palsu yang tidak disahkan, akan mendapat wang sagu RM20000.00, wang sagu akan dibahagikan serata jika melebihi seorang.

Translation: The person who reports to our company on any unauthorized production of this product will receive a monetary reward of RM20,000, and this reward will be divided equally if there were more than one person reporting.

Now, this is what I call a very practical solution to overcome a potential principal-agent problem. The principle (the company) may have unscrupulous agents (the staff) working within the company that may steal the product idea and get it produced elsewhere, selling under a different name. It will be extremely challenging for the company, which I believe is a family-run business, to monitor the activity of its agents. Instead, by providing an incentive to the product's customers, they are encourage to 'police' for unauthorized productions on behalf of Thien Cheong Sdn Bhd. This is the first time, I see such fine print on a food packaging and I thought the idea was simply ingenious (and the packaging is awesomely old skool)! Now, I'll just have to see if it tastes any good :P

The tax structure for cars in Malaysia: A misaligned incentive?

Question: Will imposing heavy excise duties really gonna help Malaysians?

So, enough of heresy, we look at some facts as published by MAA (Malaysia Automotive Association) with regards to taxes and duties imposed on the automotive industry. Here, you'll probably understand why you're using half your salary for your monthly repayment and you're not even driving a Ferrari.

One of the most common peeves by consumers in this country is the lack of choice (maybe also due to a fairly 'small market', you can see the domination of 2 or maximum 3 players in every income level from low, mid to high). Other than the price factor, national cars are not the first choice, why? Lack of technological advancement, lack of quality, bad service, questionable safety features, etc. So, Malaysians make do with what they have. They start with a national car because it's the cheapest. Then they probably upgrade to a foreign CKD marque once they have more income, but quality is still questionable (i.e local sourced and manufactured parts). Please note that when we mention 'low quality', we're not just referring to Proton or Perodua AS manufacturers. We're also referring to all the sub-industries that are brought to life by the automotive industry and that include the thousands of parts makers, fabric manufacturers, R&D centres, etc. If Malaysia, generally has a quality issue (lack of thinking for innovative solutions, instead all they think about is cost-cutting measures) then there will be a collective quality issue. Which really means the problem stems further than just Proton and Perodua - it includes your Hondas, Toyotas, Peugeots, Nazas, soon-to-be Bermaz and VWs - basically, any brands that own a manufacturing plant here. It's a collective problem. And read this, automotive is only one industry we're talking about here.

Can you imagine the excise duty, as low as 75% is slapped on top of the price of your car? My question is, yes... it is our national pride to have Proton which basically driven Malaysia to a new heights from before. It perhaps even single-handedly, opened almost an infinite amount of opportunities that helped shaped our economy. Millions are employed because of the automotive industry. But. Because of such unfavorable tax structure for a better quality car, some Malaysians are paying out at least 1/3 of their income. If the repayment was lower, and the mid-high income earners have more disposable money to spend, how would that change our economy? Of course, I hear some angry cynics - these people who chose to drive fancy cars deserve to pay a high price, they chose it!

Well, to be honest, Malaysia is a very extraordinary country. Our cars are more than just cars it seems, they are luxury badges. A symbol of upgrade. That again, ladies and gentlemen, is something we cannot deny in not having a hand in creating! We obviously have quality issues between national and non-national, CKDs and CBUs. We obviously have a strong price difference between local and foreign brands. Did we not shape the market to becoming what it is today? The ultimate question is, was the incentive misaligned? If cars were priced cheaper with more options to pick from in any one category, in short, a hell lot more competitive - will that favor the Malaysian economy more? Because when we're not spending 1/3 of our monthly salary on our cars, we could be spending on something else - property for instance, education for ourselves (or children) for instance, on charity, on better food quality, on travel, on so much more.

I'm sure if the overall quality of locally manufactured cars (regardless of brand) is improved, then Malaysia will be on her highway to a lot more possibilities. Once the foundation is set, who's to say we won't be a strong player in R&Ds and IPs in this region? And remember, Malaysia always has an edge over her neighbours. We're cheap and good. So let us stop being just cheap and start being good.

There's no right or wrong answer I supposed. But it's really something to think about. It's just time to recalculate whether current incentives and barriers are accurately measured and really giving us most bang for buck. It's time to change.