Small Business Marketing on the Internet

Advertising on the internet can be very expensive for small businesses. Search engine marketing can need a lot of money and the bigger firms can outdo the smaller companies in no time. How does one find a solution to this situation? Is there a more affordable way of marketing for smaller companies who don’t have big budgets for advertising?One of the major challenges of marketing your business online is being available to the user when the user needs you. Advertising on the internet serves this purpose to an extent, but there are limitations to it.1. There is no guarantee that your customer will notice your advertisement.2. Those who do notice the advertisement may not be your target audience.3. Even if they are your target customers, they may not be in the frame of mind to register the message about your business.4. Only sustained advertising which is expensive can give you a chance to be noticed by your target audience.However, small businesses that do not have fancy budgets to spend on advertising cannot afford this kind of marketing. This makes reaching the target audience even more difficult. What does one do then? Try and leverage the internet.Challenges of advertising on the Internet: Advertising on the internet has a lot of challenges. Some of them are:1. It is very expensive.2. Established internet marketing agencies that can advertise for you may not find your scale of operations or budgets lucrative.3. There are a lot of scams and fly by night operators who earn their money at the cost of your business.4. There are billions of websites that you are competing against and you need to get noticed among these websites.What happens then to small businesses that are looking at getting noticed by their target audience on the internet? Search Engine Marketing can help such businesses to get noticed and grow their business. Over 60% of the people use search engines before deciding on anything.Advantages of search engines for a business: 1. People look for your products and business when they search on the internet. If you are available to them at that time, it will help your business grow.2. Instead of you trying to get to your customers, they try to find you.3. It is the best time to reach your customer when he is searching for you because then he is most receptive to your message.4. While advertising on the internet is expensive, being on the search engine and appearing among the top search results when your customer needs you need not be very expensive.To leverage the power of search engines, for most growing businesses, it makes marketing sense to outsource SEO to a credible and ethical SEO firm. You gain from their resident SEO expertise, results achieved last for months after the SEO effort is stopped and the biggest gain is that you are able to make search engines market your products and services.

Use of Drones in Aerospace/Defense

The development of unmanned aerial systems, or drones was initially for military purposes. As these aerial systems did not require an onboard pilot, they were seen as a useful weapon on the battlefield. Not only does a drone decrease the mortality rate of the soldiers, it also provides the military a chance to spy on the enemy in a discrete manner.Drones have become an important component of national defense for the following reasons.· A drone is an unmanned vehicle, that is, it does not require any one to be on it to be controlled. This is possible because it can be controlled using a remote control. Though it is mandatory that it is still controlled by a trained pilot, it does not require the pilot to go with it.


· The US military has been using drones to search for terrorists in Afghanistan and have proved how useful they are for conducting covert military operations.· Drones can be used for various purposes such as searching for hidden terrorists, gunning the terrorists down in their own areas and searching for the hidden landmines using hyperspectral imaging sensors.· Keeping an eye on the air space of the country.· Keeping a check on the borders of the country without threatening the lives of the most precious soldiers.The use of the US Army’s Global Hawk in the combat field of Afghanistan has already made news. This has triggered a race between countries to own and develop this technology as soon as possible. Countries like UK and China and India are already way ahead in the research and development of drones for their respective defense forces.The use of drones even by the army is not only for combat and espionage purposes. This technology is largely being developed for the times when a crisis hits the nation. The military is trying to use drones in areas that have suffered fire or earthquake where the military and air force is called in to rescue people. This is the humanitarian aspect of the use of drones. Drones are sent in difficult to reach places to search for survivors. When the images from a drone shows the presence of any survivor, special teams are sent in to carry out rescue operation. This has saved many lives and is sure to save a number of lives in future too.


The countries that are trying to be the controlling factors in the world need to have this technology soon. UK has started by bringing together all of its top engineers to develop homemade UAVs and there were news about the flight of their first UAV named Taranis.The use of UAVs cannot replace the fighter jets or the satellites, however, they can be used for surveillance missions that can’t be performed by fighter jets as they are too big and therefore can be spotted quite easily by radar. Drones are definitely one of the “must haves” for any good army in the future.

The Controversy of UK Agricultural Land Conversions to Housing

What are seen as the controversies around converting land from agriculture to housing?The value of UK Green Belt and agricultural lands is undisputed. But the environmental costs of modern farming and housing needs are part of the conversation as well.Anybody considering making an alternative investment in strategic land will know that Britain unquestionably needs more homes to accommodate a growing population. According to the Office for National Statistics, more than 4.4 million homes should be built by 2016, largely in response to two factors: A decennial growth rate of 7 percent, as measured in Census 2011, and lagging new home construction that fails to keep up with this population increase, largely attributed to the stringent lending standards of banks following the 2008 economic crisis.At least one group claims the solution is to build on Green Belt land. The Policy Exchange, a centre-right think tank, said in late 2012 that the supply of land near cities that is kept unbuilt is a drag on the housing market. They argue that swaths of English countryside that typically surround towns should be opened up for development. The fourteen Green Belts in England cover about 13 percent of the country, enveloping about 60 percent of Britain’s population (about 30 million people).The Policy Exchange faces plenty of headwind in its positions. Since the “garden city movement” of the early 20th century, the effort to combat urban sprawl led by such groups as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the London County Council sought to maintain open spaces dedicated to recreation, forests and agriculture as a social good. But the Town and Country Planning Association has proposed since 2002 the adoption of more flexible policies toward Green Belt lands, suggesting that instead of a growth-stifling “belt,” that “wedges” and “strategic gaps” might allow a natural expansion of urban areas.


Famously, the head of Natural England, whose charge is entirely to ensure protection and improvement of flora and fauna, said in 2007 “we need a 21st century solution to England’s housing needs which puts in place a network of green wedges, gaps and corridors, linking the natural environment and people.”Agricultural land outside of Green BeltsOf course, land away from the major cities is green as well, much of it in use for agricultural, forestry and recreational purposes. More than 80 percent of the landmass in England and Wales, 12 million hectares, are used for farming and forestry. Local planning authorities can more easily rezone the lands outside Green Belts when market factors, such as the demand for housing development, call for it. Since 2000, about 1500 hectares of agricultural land has been converted to housing development every year.Of course, similar sentiments understandably still exist relative to the bucolic perceptions of farming in the U.K. But environmentalists take exception to how modern agricultural methods, which include excessive application of fertilisers, can actually burden nature with its by-products:• Toxic build-up. 100 million tonnes of sewage sludge, compost and livestock manures applied annually to agricultural lands is leading to a build-up of potentially toxic elements such as zinc and copper, and more than half of sensitive wildlife habitat experiences harmful acid and nitrogen pollution, according to a paper published by Environment Agency UK.• Loss of soil. About 2.2 million tonnes of topsoil is lost each year due to intensive cultivation, some of which is instigated by compaction from heavy machinery and livestock, which precludes plant growth and leads to runoff in rain. (source: Environment Agency UK). To be fair, some runoff is noted as well from building sites before landscaping is completed.• Water quality compromised. About 70 percent of sediments found in water come from agriculture, and those sediments can carry metals, pathogens, pesticides and phosphates.Such problems due to modern agriculture plague the planet, as similar pollution levels are reported throughout Europe, Asia, North America and Australia. Africa, Brazil and Argentina, the newer frontiers for agriculture, are expanding arable croplands to meet global food demands but also exhibit a host of environmental sins.The food-housing tugThere is no denying that the housing needs in the UK must be met – and soon. A whole generation of families are postponing children or living in cramped quarters, awaiting homes they can afford or at least rent to accommodate their members.But Brits need to eat as much as sleep. So how to balance the use of land for each?A number of approaches are being tested. One is to encourage development of so-called brownfield lands, which include properties that may require remediation from previous industrial uses. These lands are often within towns or immediately adjacent to them, some with excellent access to existing urban infrastructure while others are cost-prohibitive for a variety of reasons (no existing infrastructure, undesirable locations for housing or extensive environmental remediation required).


SustainableBuild.co.uk is a web publisher that considers the balance between development and environmental sustainability from a very pragmatic standpoint. The site offers several points on how land conversions to development can have a negative effect, which include: converted greenfields are quite unlikely to be converted back to nature; there is inevitable loss of habitat for animals and plants; a loss of employment for agricultural workers; and a loss of Green Belt land that provides geographical definitions and separations of cities, towns, villages and hamlets (I.e., American-style urban sprawl).Answering the problem of diminishing agricultural lands is a nascent movement to small-scale, organic agriculture on greenfield lands. SustainableBuild notes, “There are greenfield sites that are not being used for any purpose, for whatever reason. Development must consider all human and environmental factors, not just consume land and space for short-term solutions. A sustainable vision would look at all the options for land use, human population expansion, urban sprawl, economic considerations as well as environmental needs.”Which, in a country with a growing population and a concurrent appreciation for the environment, is perhaps the most realistic and pragmatic approach.

Family Business, Non-Family Business, Urban Myths.

After 20 years of working with Senior Executives across the world it’s interesting to see the mistakes when appointing Senior Executives. There can be many reasons why, but one reason is not understanding the differences of working in a Family Business and a Non-Family Business. I’ve recently met several Senior Executives who are unhappy with their employment because of this lack of knowledge and understanding and I’m meeting Business owners who didn’t realise there was a difference. These Business Owners feel that money and title is enough and stick to the Mantra of “Surely experienced ‘C’ level Executives can work in any company?”Due to the change of economy, I have become more involved with assisting Family Businesses rather than just the corporates in finding ‘C’ level people. To do this successfully I believe that everyone in the process of hiring Senior Executives must understand the differences that separate the two entities. Having worked for an English and Indian Family Business in a past life this has helped me at first hand to see the ups and downs of these Businesses; this with a theoretical base has helped with running my own companies or advising others with theirs.One recent company I have been involved with was run and founded by a successful New Zealand Entrepreneur. He does not have anybody in his immediate family to hand the reins over to. He has tried (outside the family) executives to fill his ‘C’ level roles and has had three people in three years! What is the problem? Was this a real Family Business? Was the Problem his, or the Executives?We discussed the reasons for the failures but in terms of assisting the owner I got him to firstly look at where his people came from. All three had been ‘C’ level people in corporates and had done an excellent job in their corporate environment. They all returned to corporate life and continued to do well in their new roles. Why did they fail then in this successful company?What I needed the owner to do was to identify a “Family Business”. I don’t normally use dictionary definitions but feel that in this instance Wikipedia gives a satisfactory explanation of a Family Business;”A commercial organization in which decision-making is influenced by multiple generations of a family-related by blood or marriage-who are closely identified with the firm through leadership or ownership. Owner-manager entrepreneurial firms are not considered to be family businesses because they lack the multigenerational dimension and family influence that create the unique dynamics and relationships of family businesses” Wikipedia 2014.We looked at his company and although he didn’t have anyone in the immediate family to take over the reins he had people who owned the company in minor leadership roles. We both agreed he did in fact have a Family Business.


He thought that buying in top salaried ‘C’ level Executives from corporates would enhance growth and sustain his business. He had not seen any differences between Family and Non-Family Business.Urban Myths for Family Businesses;All are unstable Small to Midsize businesses’.
As an Executive I don’t want to baby sit the junior family members so they can take over my job.
A non-family member will never run the company.
Mother and Father Companies, the only people that matter in the company are family members.
Emotional hard to work places due to family disagreements/arguments.
Incompetent family members in positions of authority.
Are these statements true or are they just Urban Myths?Family businesses are one of the fastest growing sectors of the world economy and now merit serious consideration by Senior Executives looking to advance their careers. This is an amazing turnaround from 25 years ago when nobody wanted to work for a family-owned business. There now seem to be many positives;Patricia Epperlein from InterSearch reports that;In the USA, 90% of businesses are family-owned. They contribute towards 40% of that nation’s GNP and pay approximately half of its total wages.59% of France’s Top-500 industrial companies are family-owned.It is estimated that 70% to 85% of all businesses worldwide are family-owned.Tom O’Neil NZ Herald. Jan 2014 states;Small to medium businesses are the lifeblood of New Zealand industry. Various sources cite family businesses as representing 75 per cent of Kiwi firms, providing up to 80 per cent of employment and 65 per cent of national GDP.It’s interesting to note that when companies around the world state that they are a “Family Business” they are trying to reinforce positive family values of, Integrity, honesty, trust and loyalty.Not all Family Businesses’ are SMEs. Companies like;Porsche
WalMart
Tata Group.
In New Zealand the Talley Family (Agribusiness) and the Pandey family (Hotels).
Simon Peacocke of BDO Auckland, an accredited Family Business Advisor works with numerous NZ Family Businesses and feels that they do well because of the following reasons;Family businesses think very long-term and are very resilient, much more so than non-family businesses.Second and third generation family business members start their apprenticeship at a very young age. At 5 years old they are hearing their parents talking about the business so they have an incredible depth of knowledge to draw on.Their relationships with staff and communities also tend to be different – closer, more connected, more loyal.Staff tend to become part of the family business and to stay on as long-term committed employees.While corporates like to be seen supporting their communities, family businesses generally don’t promote they are doing this – they just do it.They don’t throw lots of money at things trying to get rich quick.They also have a powerful focus on building relationships with staff, customers and suppliers.So is it worth working for a family company? Is it better to work for a Non-Family Business? Is there any difference when the economy is good or is in a slump?Nicolas Kachaner 2012 in the Harvard Business Review states,”Results show that during good economic times, family-run companies don’t earn as much money as companies with a more dispersed ownership structure. But when the economy slumps, family firms far outshine their peers. And when we looked across business cycles from 1997 to 2009, we found that the average long-term financial performance was higher for family businesses than for non-family businesses in every country we examined”.Senior Executives looking for longevity in the work place should look at the Family Business as this would take them through economies varying peaks and troughs. They will need to be aware that this will always be done in a cost effective way.Business Consultants believe that they can tell easily if the company is Family or Non-Family Business. You just walk into the Head Office. A Non-family office has a very substantial corporate office with a “Wow Factor”. The Family business being more Frugal has very few “Bells and Whistles”. This Frugality is about the Family Business CEO looking to invest in the long term 20 year plan with the business passing down the generations. The Non-Family CEO is looking to make an instant mark and will try and outperform the person they have taken over from. There are many studies that show that Family Businesses did better in the recent Global recession for the above reason. The Family Business is frugal in the good times and the bad allowing them to weather the storms of economic crisis.This is one of the factors that had been wrong in my client with three ‘C’ Level people in three years. His ‘C’ level people came in with a quick turnaround plan which they hoped would give a quick fix and outspending the last person in the hope that they would do something instantly. No twenty year plan for them as they had never been afforded this way of working in the past.Do Family Businesses perform differently in other countries?


Justin Craig, PhD states,”Interestingly, in many aspects family businesses as a sector do not vary much from country to country. There are obvious cultural differences but a business with family involvement is challenging in every country. It is also more rewarding than the ‘corporates’, let’s not forget that. Of course, there are older businesses in Europe, for example, than in Australia and New Zealand and the United States, and the mind-sets of companies in Europe will differ than in the later developed countries. But day to day the differences are not noticeable. Older businesses have more at stake and lots more to lose but they also have advantages. Family leaders still have to manage three independent and interdependent systems being the family, the business and the ownership group”.Appointing the right Senior Executives is crucial to any company and is a costly acquisition. There are many reasons why hiring at this level goes wrong but getting it right can make a huge difference to your company.To answer one of my questions, can a ‘C’ Level person work in any type of Business, Family or Non-Family?Yes, but only if they are armed with the knowledge of the differences of the two. What they must also be sure of is the type of business that they are going to work in as sometimes this can be a cloudy issue, making it difficult for them to decide which one it is. Look at those mighty corporate companies of Porsche, Tata and Walmart to name a few.Finding the right ‘C’ Level Executive is a lengthy process and shouldn’t be rushed, if you need to rush you are better to go down the Executive Leasing Route in the short term which will allow you to take a breath and get the right permanent person in place. Work with your inside team or your outside partners to establish a good process, so the firm can articulate the process to the Senior Executives. Everyone appreciates the fact that there is a well thought-out plan in place.For me, I decided a long time ago not to build a Family Business. I wanted to give my children the best in life, but wanted them to make their own way in life too. My children might disagree but as one is studying to be a Barrister and one is settled in a corporate I will wait and see if I need to step in? I have however, always agreed with Billionaire Investor Warren Buffett who said, “He would give his kids just enough so that they could do anything, but not so much as they did nothing”.