James Tuckerman, Editor-In-Chief, Anthill Magazine

On 25 September we staged a Gala Awards Ceremony, hosted by our Primary Sponsor PriceawaterhouseCoopers, to celebrate the Winners and Finalists of our 2008 Cool Company Awards.

The bash featured a Star Wars theme. The category winners each took home a 5′11″ surfboard (The biggest award in business!). The night was understandably ‘cool’.

But what makes a company ‘cool’? (And, perhaps more importantly from the perspective of our applicants, what makes one company ‘cooler’ than another?)

For those who’ve watched the evolution of the Cool Company Awards, you will know that it was initially created as an ‘in-house’ joke – a way for us to lampoon all the existing and various business award programs held by the media (it still makes us chuckle).

But, of course, the awards have since taken on a life of their own.

While we still maintain our responsibilities as founders and custodians of the ‘Cools’, we also acknowledge that, like all good initiatives, we are ‘slaves’ to our creation.

‘Cool’ is a subjective term. It is also a concept that is constantly mutating.

Fortunately, the Awards were created to be similarly malleable, designed to “recognise companies that are applying rule-changing behaviour to bring about positive change” (a foundation that already recognises the importance of change).

Of course, the Awards have rules. They have criteria.

Over the years, we have developed a complex application process and, of course, we employ the services of a highly talented and knowledgeable panel of judges from a diverse range of industries.

But we are still sometimes left scratching our heads while attempting to define that important word upon which the Cool Company Awards are based.

So, for our third annual Cool Company Awards, in addition to each applicant organisation’s eligibility, commercial intelligence and reference to the formal criteria, here’s what went into out thinking.

Firstly, if you haven’t already noticed, Anthill Magazine is about more than simply making profits. It is not about pure wealth creation, but rather about the process of creation itself.

It’s about the passion, the excitement, the trials, the tribulations, the highs and the lows of entrepreneurship and business development. Of course, the ultimate goal is to make a profit, but never to profit at all cost.

We believe that cool companies recognise this distinction. Applicant organisations that were able to demonstrate their own understanding of this philosophy were given a big tick by our judges.

Secondly, a while back we noticed that most business magazine award programs ask participants to answer only six to nine questions, supported by some key financials. We have always regarded this common format as shallow. (How can you truly understand an organisation by simply peering at its Profit & Loss statements?)

For the Cool Company Awards we ask participants to answer over 50 questions, requiring candid and intimate responses, as well as self-reflection. We also ask the key financial stuff, but these questions are mostly used to ensure that applicants aren’t telling us porkies.

We believe that cool companies are transparent companies. They understand their strengths and their flaws. They engage their employees and customers as informed benefactors of the organisation’s success (not just necessary cogs in the maintenance of the ‘machine’).

Finally, we looked at the ‘personality’ and ‘purpose’ of the organisation. Ultimately, it seems that the ‘personality’ of a company has as much to do with its ability to succeed as its ‘purpose’. Organisations with a compelling purpose and commanding personality were more often than not deemed ‘remarkable’ by our judges and this distinction quickly moved to the core of the judging process and the awards itself.

For example, if an application caused one of our judges to sit up, often involuntarily, and make the remark, ‘This one’s interesting!’ before providing a justification for his/her sudden awe, that application would automatically be pushed through to the next round of judging.

These companies were, by definition, ‘remarkable’ because they caused our judges to ‘remark’.

And this, it seems, became the ultimate benchmark upon which all applications were measured.

We all know that some companies inspire conversation and fuel word of mouth. We intuitively understand that these companies do so because they are somehow able to capture our attention and our imagination. Through the process of judging this year’s Cool Company Awards we began to fully appreciate this one commercial truth.

Most companies aspire to be very good. But only great companies aspire to be and achieve the description ‘remarkable’. And those companies, we believe, are simply… cool.

• To check out this year’s winners, click here.
• To see the surfboard trophy and other pics, click here.

James Tuckerman, Editor-In-Chief, Anthill Magazine

We’ve noticed a strange trend in our circulation data these past six months.

Subscription numbers have dipped while retail sales have increased.

It’s all ’swings and round-a-bouts’ to us but it still begs the question: At a time when many business owners are battening down the hatches and pulling their purse strings tight, why are our readers opting for the more expensive option?

It’s been observed that funny things happen to our collective psyche when the economists start talking doom and gloom.

For example, it’s been noted in the past that movie ticket sales increase in times of hardship (When we naturally seek escapism), as do flower sales. (Yup, the type you might buy to perk up the home when feeling blue.)

We often sacrifice the things we need, in place of the small things we want.

There’s another thing worth remembering about recessions.

They’re a great time for investing in yourself, your business and fortifying your place in the market.

Observation #1… Everything is cheap. Great bargains can be found. (In fact, if you want an Anthill subscription for only $29.95 - 40% less than retail - click here and insert the promo code SCREWTHERECESSION. Believe me, just typing those three words feels both defiant and cathartic.)

Observation #2… With all your competitors holding back on their usual marketing activities, now is the time for you to shine. Focus on selling additional value. Use a quiet marketing landscape to widen your funnel. Focus on strengthening existing relationships. Be like Kelloggs! (below).

Observation #3… Finally, tough times are the universe’s way of making you stronger. Invest in yourself. Find optimistic mentors. Get out and about. Talk to people. Talk to yourself. And find new ways of solving problems. If the solutions work for you, there could be a business in it.

If the doomsayers have already got you in a funk and if my three points are sounding like horse-manure, here’s a quaint and true story to consider.

In 1929, Kellogg’s and the leading cereal maker of the time, Post, were in a close race to win the breakfast cereal market. When the Great Depression started, Kellogg’s maintained their advertising spending while rival Post cut back.

Now ask yourself, ‘How many more boxes of Kellogg’s product have been sold long after The Depression ended because someone had the vision to see a time of economic slowdown as the time to pull ahead of competition?’ And what happened to Post!

Thems my two cents. Now reader, it’s your turn.

Any helpful tips, ideas, suggestions, observations on how to profit from a recession?

By James Tuckerman, Editor-In-Chief, Anthill Magazine

In the cover story of Anthill’s launch Edition, way back in 2003, we posed the question, “Who’s carrying Australian Innovation.”

Five year’s later, we have a new Government, a new Minister (for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) and a newly launched series of stakeholder consultations to kick-start a Federal ‘Review of Australia’s National Innovation System.’

This is obviously a good thing. The Federal Government is taking innovation seriously.

But there’s also something ironic about an ‘innovation’ review (launched to “promote a culture supportive of new knowledge and fresh ideas”) that relies on a progressively outdated method for gathering feedback. The public forum is a crowded, generally awkward and genuinely artificial meeting of largely self-interested people.

I wondered the same thing when the Prime Minister gathered his 1,000 brightest minds in Canberra last month. If the lack of gender balance wasn’t already a concern, the added cost to Northern and Western Australians also highlighted a financial inequality.

So, of course, you can understand my consternation at why the Review of National Innovation Stakeholder Consultations chose the antiquated ‘public forum’ as its preferred method for gathering feedback (alongside the more exclusive, invite-only ‘think tank’), particularly in the progressive arena of science, technology and R&D.

Frustration #1: Public Forums are Opportunistic

Attending a public forum is a headache. It’s a boring, time-consuming distraction from running a business. As such, it seems to attract only those who have the most to gain from getting their own generally self-serving agendas across. If you want to observe where 90% of innovation funding ends-up, you now know where to go (perhaps with cap in hand). It means that only the most saintly of altruists will ever make their presence known, which rules out most members of industry and the private sector.

Frustration #2: The Same Ideas are Pitched Ad Nauseum

Wearing my editor’s cap, I get a swag of innovation proposals across my desk, generally seeking our support through coverage, promotion or endorsement. The surprising thing is that few of these innovation proposals are genuinely innovative. In fact, I have had the same idea pitched to me by two separate organisations in the same week, after seeing the same concept fail two years prior. While this shouldn’t exclude a good idea that was poorly implemented or simply the subject of bad luck from getting a second chance, the lack of communication and the degree of duplication does frustrate me (as I’m sure it equally frustrates forum organisers).

Frustration #3: They Favour the Establishment

Forums can be costly to attend, particularly if you are not a city dweller, and ‘think tanks’ favour established players, often with too much time on their hands. In short, the same people are generally invited year after year and, of course, they share the same opinions year after year. Further, an entire generation of business people (two generations, in fact - Gen X and Gen Y), half the workforce, prefer consultative, collaborative and downright more efficient ways to share information and discuss trends. They use this little thing called the ‘Internet’ (ohhh… it’s great, you should check it out).

So, here’s my offer to the new Rudd Government, the new Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, and the new National Review (to be conducted by another “expert panel”)…

Over 10,000 Australians will read this blog. Over 50,000 Australians will read the next edition of Anthill Magazine. That doesn’t make us big in the grander scheme of things but it certainly puts us at an advantage in the innovation space.

We have the technology. We have the readership. We have the will. Come exploit our altruistic nature and desire to create a truly democratic innovation system in Australia.

Call me… Call me now (said with breathy excitement caused by Australia’s genuinely explosive but often untapped innovation potential).

In short, we have a ’soapbox’, so why not use it? (note my oh-so clever use of metaphor - ’soapbox’: archaic, obsolete physical object used for public speaking).

And here’s my offer to new and old Anthillians…

If you weren’t able to attend the Public Forums and would like to contribute, please go crazy with any comments you’d like to leave below. We’d be honoured to submit your thoughts to the PTBs (powers-that-be) responsible for the National Review (whether or not our offer is accepted).

Posted by James Tuckerman, Publisher, Founder & Editor-In-Chief

Wow!

The comments generated by yesterday’s blog post certainly had us on the edge of our seats and doing some serious introspection.

Firstly, some quick responses…

The category thing: We did add some categories after initial feedback and I’ve also added a new field today - ‘Create an award category’. Of course, we can’t have an endless supply of award categories but, this being our first year, we are largely being guided by participant feedback and what our statistics say (eg. what works and what doesn’t).

The age thing: Perhaps women entrepreneurs do run to a different clock (the ‘broken pathways’ debate). I just gotta say that we LOOOOVED Sonja’s idea of resetting age. But, ultimately, Leela’s point reflects our position. We created 30under30 because young entrepreneurs were lacking in entries and finalists for the Cool Company Awards. We wanted to create a platform to recognise the ‘up and coming’ talent. There are plenty of awards for entrepreneurs but few for young entrepreneurs.

James’ secret agenda: No agenda to meet more women here (I think Gulliver has been on too many travels). Our agenda was simply to generate more nominations from women. And it worked! Women now represent almost 30% of nominations. That’s a big jump from 3%. So, we’re very pleased. Also… by the way… I’m not under 30 (despite what the press releases might say).

Can someone tell me where to get one of those ‘age resetter’ devices from Sonja?

Finally…

Women as contributors: After all that… The following cheeky letter to the editor at BRW (below) titled ‘The X-Chromosome Factor’ had me take a quick measure of the male to female ratio of content in Anthill.

After reading this, I grabbed a nearby copy of BRW (February 7-13, 2008) and, after a cursory flick, found 51 opinions or stories featuring blokes and only two about women. That’s a gender ratio of 51:2… Ouch! The other business magazines on my desk didn’t do much better (and let me assure you, there are many business magazines on my desk). The exception, of course, was Vive.

So, how did Anthill Magazine rate?

We came up 15:6 in favour of the patriarchy.

Hmmm.

So, here’s my plan.

Firstly… please continue to nominate women for 30under30. Secondly… I have created a Forum thread, calling for readers to promote themselves and other female entrepreneurs. Thirdly… if you have an idea for an opinion piece, please read our Editorial style and contributor guidelines.

However, because I suspect that Leela and Phillipa’s comments are spot on (women are too busy RUNNING their business to have time for self-promotion), I suggest that you pitch the idea for the opinion piece before the editorial.

In fact, why not do it now as a comment below?

What’s an angle or story that you would like to contribute to Anthill?