I'm on a bit of a roll writing about social impact at the moment – here's a post I've written for the UnltdWorld blog as part of their Shout Out for Social Enterprise series – questioning whether a focus on certain business structures (four legged company limited by guarantee good, two legged private business bad) takes us away from what we should be concentrating on – does this business make a difference?  

Lots
going around my head this morning but not much time to write.  Given that there's lots going round my head this may not be the most coherent post, but here goes.

I'd like to
point you to a couple of interesting blog posts from the RSA.  In the
first, from Matthew Taylor, he describes himself as "an enthusiastic
collectivist but a reluctant statist."  It's a neat phrase, which I
think also gives a good idea of my position too.  

One
of the myths of affluence (or at least one that I've swallowed) is that greater
wealth can lead to greater independence.  You basically don't have to
worry too much about things as long as you've got a good bit of cash to buy
your way through life. You can buy your independence – and, it's assumed – your happiness and wellbeing.  

In thinking more about climate change over the
last few months, it's struck me that if we are going to build an economy and
society which have any chance of survival, we need to better recognise our
interdependence. That's true on a global scale – but also on a local
scale.  We won't be able to change things on our own. Hence my
interest in the collective – but my scepticism about the role of the state.
 

Following
on from this I found this post from the RSA Connected Communities blog
interesting.  The post looks at community responses to climate change, and
includes this quote from an RSA Fellow:

The future is certainly looking ominous. But I have
experiences that when you join together with others to do something about it,
something extraordinary starts to happen. You might start with something that
seems small or insignificant in the face of the huge scale changes that are
needed, with “ordinary” people, not experts, and no idea how to begin. But in
the process, such groups can come up with really robust ideas and initatiatives
that start things moving and create a momentum that gradually infects the wider
community.” 

It made me
think again about the Borrowed Planet group I'm part of, and also about Progress School, where I'm going this afternoon.  Should my aim in life be to become independent?  Or happily
interdependent with others?  And does the State have a role in helping me and others to be happily interdependent?

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.

I've found a new toy to play with on the internet – Wordle.  It takes text and generates a word cloud.  

The wikinomics blog pointed me to the opening speech at Davos yesterday – so I thought I'd try Wordle out – here it is:

Times are tough, and all the talk is of tax cuts to help us all make ends meet.  But is there an argument to say that now's the time to increase the amount we all pay into the pot?

If you ran a bank, and had loaned a load of money to a football club, who then couldn't pay it back, what would you do?  

Obviously if you re-possess a house, you can usually find someone else who's in the market for buying a house.  But selling on a stadium – that would challenge the most florally-linguistic estate agent.  

At a social economy trade fair a couple of weeks back, I was struck by how confident the staff from the various social economy banks appeared.  Staff from the Co-op, Charity Bank, and Unity Trust all had a spring in their step, whilst (this was my recollection at least) the RBS staff all looked a bit deflated, stood behind their trestle table handing out gonks and pens to passers-by.  

I came across an interesting post via the Remarkable Communications blog by a guy called Steve Yastrow. He’s written a book called We: The Ideal Customer Relationship.

He defines a We Relationship as:

When your customer never thinks of you without thinking of both of you.

It’s worth thinking about that for a moment. He gives the example of a cafe near his home – where the owner has taken time to get to know him – and now Steve can’t think about the cafe without thinking about his relationship with it. The result is that that particular cafe gets far more of his business than the others near his home.

I like what he’s saying because he uses the term relationship building – which is how I talk about marketing. I think this kind of relationship building is where social businesses can be strong. Taking an interest in your customers, and actually caring about them, makes a massive difference. It also tends to make your own job far more enjoyable.

In a separate post, he talks about the current economic downturn – and talks about two questions he’s been asking workshop audiences over the last few months:

1. What percentage of your customers are giving you all the business they reasonably could?

2. What percentage of your referral sources are giving you all the referrals they reasonably could?

Again, these are interesting questions. It’s easy to feel disheartened in an economic downturn, and to feel paralysed by the sense that no-one is spending any money on whatever it is you offer. But he suggests that developing “We Relationships” with existing and new customers can be a good way to make your way through difficult financial times:

“Customers who believe they are in “We” relationships with you will give you a larger share of their business. They are willing to pay more, and they are less likely to leave you for a competitor. On the other hand, customers who are in “Us & Them” relationships with you are more likely to spread the business around among your competitors, and will also be more likely to bolt to the competition for a lower price. If you create “We” relationships with your customers, one relationship-building encounter at a time, you will go a long way towards making up for—and maybe even surpassing—the effects of the soft economy.”

How many of your social business relationships are “we” relationships?

I find myself becoming increasingly impatient for change. I’m 35 now and have been actively involved in this social business game for 10 years or so. In those 10 years, in broad terms, the world’s become a worse place to live. So if we’re going to make the world a better place, social entrepreneurs had better get a move on.

I sometimes wonder whether ownership structures get in the way of creating social change. Social ownership is generally seen as one of the three pillars of a true social enterprise – alongside a clear social mission and an enterprising approach. But is ownership as important as some people make it out to be?

The Rochdale Pioneers suddenly spring to mind. Ownership mattered then because people were being sold adulterated flour by unscrupulous private merchants. So by taking control of flour production and distribution, the early co-operators could ensure that business was done for the benefit of the many, not the few.

Divine Chocolate comes to mind next. Ownership clearly matters there. Through social ownership, Ghanaian farmers are given a stake in the part of the cocoa business where real money is made – selling chocolate bars.

But does ownership matter everywhere? Surely it’s the social change that you create that matters most. I’m not convinced that, for the bulk of social businesses, ownership makes any real difference at all.

I see many social enterprises going through the motions when it comes to social ownership. They’ll proudly proclaim their social enterprise status, as if being a Company Limited by Guarantee, or a CIC, automatically means that everything they touch turns to social gold. It doesn’t. A structure is no more than a legal vehicle. If you drive that vehicle in a certain way, it may help you to get where you want to be – a better world – more quickly. But there’s no guarantee that it will.

This post was originally written for the Just Means All Things Reconsidered blog.

I’ve just had a read through the annual report of the Wine Society – the world’s oldest co-operative wine club. I promise it’s not nearly as stuffy as it sounds. It costs £40 to join for life (which includes £25 to spend on your first order) and it’s basically just a mail-order wine seller. But where they differ is that they’re owned by their members – so there are no shareholders to satisfy with supersize dividends.

I went to Morrisons yesterday to buy a bottle of wine. Yes, there’s a whole aisle of the stuff, but in reality the “choice” you get is limited. Big brand after big brand after big brand, many of questionable quality. One thing I like about the Wine Society is that they buy from a lot of smaller producers – which just makes for more interesting drinking.

I’m pleased to say that the annual report confirms that sales are up, profits are up and member numbers are up. They’re slightly cautious about prospects for this year because of the economic downturn, the weak pound and the rise in duty on wine, but I think they’re well placed to ride these difficulties out – because the way they do business inspires loyalty.

Of all the businesses I buy from, I’d say their service is the best. I really do feel that they’re there to serve me as a member. Most importantly, I trust them. I’ve looked at other mail-order wine clubs with their generous opening offers and all that, and I don’t trust their choice of wines.

So if you’re into wine – or know someone who is – you could do much worse than join the Wine Society.