The Social Business

Homage to French Catalonia

Back today after a couple of weeks in France.  We had a good time - a nice part of France (Rousillon, aka French Catalonia) and a 2000 mile round trip on the train which went really well. I pretended it was only Francis who was excited about sleeping on a train, but I thought it was pretty good too.

It's dangerous to make comparisons between your life at home and the life that you have for a fortnight on holiday, but here goes.  I kept thinking about social capital - those things that make life liveable.  It was much in evidence - my main memory is of people kissing the bus driver when we got on the bus to Perpignan - you don't get that in Leeds.   

It was also noticeable in the way people shop.  This time, partly because we didn't hire a car, we braved butchers and greengrocers for more of our food.  It took ages - because people spent time over buying their food - and had a good old chat with the person serving them.

It was the same in cafes and restaurants.  On the way home we went to a random restaurant near Perpignan station, and had the best moussaka I've ever had.  The plat du jour was genuinely the dish of the day - and it was brilliant.  The guy was friendly, it was good value, and we left France very happy.

We arrived back at St Pancras the next day and went to Carluccio's for lunch.  The contrast couldn't have been more stark.  The focus was on squeezing every last penny out of us, in the name of "service".  Did we want bread and olives?  Did we want a salad?  Did we want more water?  Of course, "today's specials" were the same specials as when we went there two weeks ago.  And let's just say the espresso had clearly spent more time with an accountant than a barrista ("if we reduce it in size to 16.5ml, we'll increase our GPM by 23%").

My point is that daily life was made easier by the businesses and entrepreneurs we came into contact with in France.  Business felt like something that contributed to daily life, not a mere opportunity to screw a few customers and make some money for shareholders.  

It was interesting chatting to some friends we stayed with in Paris on the way down to Argeles.  I don't follow french politics closely but I know that Sarkozy's big idea is to "modernise" the country and "liberalise" the economy so that it can "compete in the global marketplace".  I'm sure there are things that need changing in France, but you can't help but worry that they'll lose a lot if they follow our neo-liberal lead.    For example they've introduced choice into education - so you can ferry your child across the city. They've liberalised the energy market ("It's even the same electricity!  the billboards scream).  He'll no doubt make the labour market more "flexible".  Hopefully they can learn a few lessons from our experience over the last twenty years.  

Stop and rest a-while

I saw a reader of my blog briefly yesterday who commented on what she considered to be my "rant" about Francis's £9 library fine.  It was said with tongue slightly in cheek, but the point was made all the same.

I try hard not to rant, but I try harder to be honest.  And, to be honest, there's a lot that makes me want to rant.  But I believe that most of the time a more considered, thoughtful approach is appropriate, as it tends to get my message across and open up conversations which can move things on.  Which I suppose is the point of the blog.

Many bloggers will tell you of the risks they take in being open on their blog.  I'm no different, and as I've said once or twice before, I'm aware that where I have a good number of loyal readers, I know there are other people who think I'm a bit of an opinionated pain in the arse.  I also have to accept that some of those people are people in positions of power in my field of work - so there are implications for me there.

For the record I don't think my post about the library fine was a rant.  I was using a real, raw experience to convey a frustration that I feel about the culture that is behind a lot of public services.  Nonetheless, I think I need to be careful not to fall into comfy tribalism, where all public sector workers are self-serving lazybones, all private sector entrepreneurs are self-serving moneygrabbers, whilst all social entrepreneurs are to be greeted as the saviours of the world.  

I sent out a newsletter yesterday, and linked to a few recent posts.  It was interesting to read two month's worth of posts.   Where there weren't rants, there were certainly some weary, sceptical posts about the worlds of regeneration and social change.  And whilst I think I need to tone down some of that scepticism at times (it's easy to write that way - and I need to make sure I'm saying something new), I also stand by just about everything that I've written.

The more I do what I do, the more impatient I become.  My world vision is like this - we are in a right state as a society and as an economy.  We've pretty much buggered up the environment too.  But, amidst all that, I have great hope that human beings can change, and, if we get our act together, we can, in lots of small and big ways, create a world that's worth living in.  That's why I believe in this thing we call social entrepreneurship.  We need more people with a can-do attitude to changing things for the better.

That vision of the world explains why I am often sceptical, sometimes cynical - and maybe sometimes rant.  There's too much mediocrity in the world of regeneration.  Too many people working in initiatives which don't make a difference,  and where people don't learn when things go wrong.  Instead, evaluations are commissioned where some "lessons are learnt" but where most useful stuff is swept under the carpet.

It's not that I think I've got it right.  Far from it.  But I reflect on what I get wrong, and work hard to get things right.  The blog is one important part of that process.  

I'm off on holiday now for two weeks.  Off to the south of France, excitingly and vaguely sustainably by train.  I can't wait.  A chance to forget about work - but also think about it in a different kind of way.  That cliche about getting your best ideas on the beach says so much about the value of being a slow burner in the thought department, as an Enterprise Czar may not say.  

If there are any burglars reading this, some friends are house-sitting, so don't get any ideas.  (You can take the boy out of Liverpool, but you can't take Liverpool out of the boy.)

And of course, if you'd like to continue this discussion in my absence, please do.  And if I get a signal on the campsite, I might well join you.  On the other hand, I might just open another beer.  

Who will provide?

My favourite strategy story is from a friend who was working a while ago with a faith-based organisation on strategic planning.  She was struggling to get them engaged with considering the importance of financial planning.  Towards the end of an exasperating meeting, one of the Board members said "God will provide."

In her final report, my friend wrote "Whilst admiring your faith, "God will provide" does not constitute a credible financial strategy for your organisation."  She didn't get invited back to do any more work on strategic planning.  

Is it a good financial strategy to get involved in the world of contracts - delivering services for people like Councils and PCT's?  There are a load of things to consider here - which I don't have time to cover today - but in broad terms I think it is certainly something for third sector organisations to consider.  However they should consider it carefully, as it can be present some massive issues for organisations which don't have a great deal of capacity or experience outside of delivering funded projects.

Two stories spring to mind.  One is of Age Concern threatening to sue their local PCT over the loss of a contract.  The other is of an organisation I know who had worked hard to set up a service which local older people paid for.  Customers paid a below-market rate - but still not a bad price - whilst a statutory organisation contributed too - recognising the social benefit that this service offered.  

Yet a few weeks ago the statutory "partner" pulled the funding with immediate effect, citing serious financial problems.  I suppose there's a whole issue there about what's in the contract, but is this an experience that we're going to have to get used to over the next few years as public finances tighten?  Is it unfair of me to suggest that the public sector will look to cut down on what it spends with third sector partners, rather than looking at itself to see how it could save money?  

Getting involved with a group of customers who are going into seven years of famine may be a financial strategy that even God might struggle with. 

What is social (hic)?

Last Thursday, with a couple of friends, we had an enjoyable afternoon at a Wine Society lunch.  The Wine Society is a mail-order wine club - like plenty of others.  However where it's different is that it's a co-operative - run for the benefit of its members, not shareholders. 

I think it's really good.  It has a long list of interesting wines and it offers good value for money too. The lunch wasn't in the most glamorous location (Stevenage) but at least it's handy to get to on the train from Leeds.  I was keen to see behind the scenes of a business which takes up a fair bit of my disposable income. It was a good afternoon, although for the record we thought they were a bit tight with the wine over lunch, but maybe thats just us.

Is the Wine Society a social business?  When it comes to structure, it certainly is - it's an Industrial and Provident Society.  And you could frame their mission as a social mission - both their desire to offer members the pleasure of affordable, interesting wine, and their commitment to buying from smaller producers in a wine world dominated by big brands.

But of course alcohol consumption causes many social problems.  And all those bottles being shipped around the world can't do the climate much good.  Apparently Wine Society members drink 4 times more wine than the average Brit.  And that's only taking into account the wine we buy from them.  

Maybe we need businesses like The Wine Society - which proudly state what they don't do (maximise profit) - to be more clear about their social impact.  I know that their enormous new wine warehouse was built with hempcrete for example - but how else do they keep an eye on their social impact?  I'll ask them - and let you know more if they respond.  

Sugar as Enterprise Czar - continued...

I've blogged over on the Guardian's Joe Public site about Alan Sugar being appointed as Enterprise Czar - you can read the post here.  

Enterprise Rent-a-Czar

What is Gordon thinking?  Alan Sugar as Enterprise Czar.  

It's funny on one level, but it really isn't that funny.  He's not Business Czar.  Or Management Czar.  He's Enterprise Czar.  He'll no doubt have been chosen because he's a recognisable figure who the public will supposedly be able to relate to.  But do we want Sugar selling his brand of entrepreneurship?

A brand of enterprise, which, over the last few seasons of the Apprentice, seems to rely on arrogance, bullying, back-stabbing and hard-selling. Where success is judged in purely financial terms.  The guy represents a brand of enterprise that was inappropriate - but perhaps suited -  to the 1980's, but certainly not what we need now.

His attempts to show an appreciation for the zeitgeist in this year's programme have been laughable.  He keeps referring to the troubled times we're in - but he seems to believe that the solution is more of the same.

I only hope that his decision to accept this new role was informed by him being fired from The Apprentice.  I think this series has been poor - partly down to poor performances from him.  I'd miss Margaret and Nick, but I wouldn't miss him. 

Mixed media

Just on my way home from an enjoyable day in London.  I've moaned before about the London-centredness of well, just about everything, so instead of just moaning I go down every couple of months to meet people who I've chatted with on the phone, or come across via the blog.

I started at The Guardian's fancy new offices just near King's Cross, with a meeting with the paper's Head of Society (and other stuff I can't remember) Patrick Butler.  Patrick reads the blog and has asked me to write for the paper a couple of times, so it was good to catch up.

I was struck my how I felt a certain excitement at seeing the place.  That's partly my frustrated journalistic ambitions, but largely because The Guardian is a "brand" which I trust above most others.  I feel a sense of attachment to it - and I imagine it's only those newspapers which engender that sense of loyalty amongst readers which will survive in the post-classified, online world.

I then made my way to the RSA just off the Strand.  I joined the RSA last year so I was keen to see what my membership entitled me to - it's handy to have somewhere in town where you can park yourself for an  hour or two in a bit of peace and quiet.  Their Head of Archive Rob Baker gave me a bit of a tour.  It was quite fun to have a bit of a look through the archive - including letters from past RSA Fellows such as Karl Marx and Alexander Graham Bell.

I then met up with David Wilcox, aka the Social Reporter.   David's someone who I follow online so it was good to put a face to the name - and to explore how we could collaborate - particularly around using Web 2.0 stuff with social businesses.  We got excited by possibilities around recording social impact - so I'm sure more will come of that.

I finished off with meeting Ed Gamble from Policy Review TV.  I've known Ed for a few years - his background is PR and a few years back he was hired by the people I worked for at the time to basically spin us out of a sticky situation with a funder.  We've kept in touch ever since. 

I'm on the train back - and on the blog.  There was a nice thread to the meetings - all about communication in its various forms.  Print, web, books, blogs, twitter and TV.  All vehicles for social change if used in the right way. 

Cash is Queen

I enjoyed watching Mary Queen of Charity Shops last night.  Retail guru Mary Portas has taken responsibility for an ailing Save the Children charity shop and over the next few weeks will try to turn it into a cash cow for the charity.  At the moment it turns over around £900 a week and can't sustain a paid shop manager post.

It took me back to working at the fair trade shop where I cut my teeth in the world of social business.  We were a co-op - not a charity - but so many of the issues that Mary came up against last night chimed with my experience there.

We had a fantastic army of volunteers, many of them, like the Save the Children volunteers, retired women.  In an average week you might have more than 20 volunteers putting in a stint on the shop floor or in the store room.  The shop couldn't survive without them.

Or at least that's what we thought.  As I've mentioned before, we got into financial difficulties and I wrote a piece for Social Enterprise Magazine where we asked for help.  Liam Black and his FRC colleague Shaun Doran were the first to get in touch - and gave us some valuable, free support over a six month period.  They'd recently come through a difficult period with Revive - their shop in the centre of Liverpool - so there was plenty of wisdom that they were keen to share with us.

We went over to Liverpool one day and had a pretty heated discussion about how to save the shop.  Liam and Shaun were pretty clear as to what the problem was.  We'd turned into a social club for volunteers, and our assistant shop manager was in fact a volunteer manager.  I can remember quite clearly thinking that it's all very well for these guys to say that, getting rid of the volunteers just wasn't an option.

Yet a couple of weeks later that's exactly what we did.  Our finances were shot, and we could no longer afford to manage the volunteers. If we were to have two paid staff, they needed to be selling, not managing other people, many of whom, by their own admission, weren't that keen on selling. So we asked them to leave.  It was an awful experience, and there are people who still don't speak to me to this day. 

It didn't save us - we kept going for a year, sold the lease to Out of This World, kept going for a bit longer in a corner of Out of This World, then closed.   Many of the volunteers will tell you that our decision to stop working with volunteers in the shop was the decision which did for us.  I disagree, but where we gained a focus on running as a business, we certainly lost something too. 

So it'll be interesting to see how Mary gets on over the next few weeks.  Like at Trade for Change, there are volunteers at the shop who've been there for 30 years.   Try changing things in that context. 

I think the most powerful thing last night was when she asked the volunteers how much money each of them brought in each week.  It was about £15 (turnover divided by number of volunteers).  Her strategy seems to be to re-connect the volunteers with the mission of the organisation - to generate income for disadvantaged children.  I hope it works. 

The People Versus

I was back in Liverpool at the weekend to watch the Cup Final with the Blue half of my family.  Sadly the Chelsea Blue triumphed over the Everton Blue.  There were a few sore heads on Sunday morning.

Everton - the so-called People's Club - versus Chelsea - the club bankrolled by a Russian billionaire.  The game came a few days after Man United - owned by billionaire Americans - played Barcelona - a club owned by its fans.  

Barcelona's triumph made some wonder whether this was the start of a new world order - both in football and the wider economy.  Here's a letter from saturday's Guardian from Sheffield Hallam University academic Dr Rory Ridley-Duff:

Much as I am saddened by the sporting loss of Manchester United to Barcelona, I am heartened by another victory for co-operative ownership and social enterprise over private sector capitalism.  Will historians record this as a turning point in our economic history?  Will Francis Fukuyama be forced to revise his thesis on the "end of history"?  Barcelona's supporter-owned football club stands as an inspiration to co-operative entrepreneurs and social enterprises around the world. 

I'd like to believe as much as Rory does in the victory for co-operative values,  but sadly, as is usually case, I think the reality is a bit more complicated.   

Barcelona is owned by its members, and there's a strong democratic structure which elects the club's President.  Their link-up with Unicef is admirable - given that they could make a fortune out of shirt sponsorship.

But Barcelona aren't quite as virtuous as they might seem on the surface.  As David Conn points out here Barcelona (and Real Madrid) dominate in Spain partly because each club sells its TV rights exclusively.  So Barcelona make an absolute fortune, whilst the likes of Getafe will make hardly anything at all.  The Premier League is far from perfect (it was set up partly to stop sharing money with the lower leagues) but at least collective selling of rights means that the TV money is shared a bit more equally between the 20 clubs.  Co-operative values seemed to get forgotten when Barcelona decided how to negotiate TV rights.

Barcelona's choice not to have a shirt sponsor is also, of course, a great piece of marketing.  It allows them to develop the mythology of a club unsullied by corporate greed - whilst it exploits the Barcelona brand with 26 corporate sponsors who pump millions into the club - but who don't get their name on the shirt.   

My point is that I'm as pleased as anyone that Barcelona won on Wednesday, partly because I buy into the mystique of the club and its history as a symbol of Catalan pride - and I do like the fact that they have a different type of ownership.  Yet whilst Barcelona certainly show a better way to run a football club, it's far from perfect.  If we're looking for inspiration, we should perhaps take what we can from Barcelona, but continue to search for better ways to run football clubs.