February 2016

Are you better looking than your boss?

Published on: 27 Feb 2016

So who’s better looking – you or your boss?

Well, if you are male and your boss is also male there could be some disappointing career news for you if you think you are better looking than your boss.

A recent study has suggested that male bosses are less likely to promote good-looking men who work for them.

The study by University College London’s School of Management concluded that good-looking men were considered competent by their male bosses but as a result were also seen as a threat to them and their own personal career aspirations.

This raises an interesting point. Organisations no doubt want to employ the most competent people but if a male boss is reluctant to recruit or promote good-looking men because they take the view they are a threat to them personally then it means that good-looking men could be discriminated against whether or not they are competent.

Dr Sun Young Lee, the lead researcher on the study was quoted as saying “organisations want to hire competent candidates but individuals have their own agenda. When employing someone, they do not want the newcomer to do better than them and show them up”.

“What about good-looking females” I hear you say?

The study concluded that the same prejudice did not apply to women. Being a good looking lady was not associated with competence according to the study.

The study was published in the Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes journal and Dr Lee felt her results suggested that organisations should consider appointing external recruitment consultants to avoid personal preferences impacting on recruitment decisions.

One additional point though is that if you yourself are male and have recently been overlooked for a promotion by your male boss then surely the only reason you didn’t get the promotion was because you are better looking than him…

My Little Pony or My Little Font?

Published on: 22 Feb 2016

My Little Pony is a very successful entertainment brand developed by the giant US toy multinational company Hasbro. The My Little Pony range of products first started back in the early 1980s when a line of plastic pony toys was introduced.

Since then the toy line has been joined by a number of animated TV series as well as an animated full length feature film.

All in all, a great success but there’s now a potentially very serious issue concerning the font they use on their products.

Typeface company Font Brothers design fonts and last month filed a law suit against Hasbro claiming that My Little Pony uses one of their fonts without permission.

According to Font Brothers, Hasbro used their “Generation B” font for their My Little Pony products and website without obtaining the correct licence. In other words, they are claiming that My Little Pony is using a pirated font.

Now whilst some people may say that using a font is a minor issue, if the courts find that they have been using it without the proper licence then it could be a very serious matter.

The complaint filed at the New York federal court stated that “Defendant Hasbro has used or instructed others to use unauthorised copies of the Generation B Font in the creation of, but not limited to, all products, goods, merchandise, television and film properties, and advertising material connected with the ‘My Little Pony’ product line…”.

It went on to say that “Defendant Hasbro has created unauthorised and infringing copies of the Generation B Font software and impermissibly distributed the same to third parties.”

Some fonts are so similar that it is difficult to prove which font is being used but the style sheet on Hasbro’s website specifically mentioned the Generation B Font so it will be difficult for them to claim that they weren’t using the font!

It looks like Font Brothers tried to settle matters before it got to court as they wrote in their complaint that they had contacted Hasbro about the unauthorised use but the toy company refused to license the font for their products.

The matter is now in the hands of the court but seeing as the infringements cover such a significant product there is a chance that damages could amount to a significant figure.

It may well be that it wasn’t My Little Font but it was in fact Your Little Font.

Would you buy a bottle of whisky or invest in a bottle of whisky?

Published on: 15 Feb 2016

Buying whisky or investing in whisky – that’s an interesting question and my guess is that most people who buy whisky are planning on gently pouring it into a glass and maybe adding some ice or a mixer before settling back to savour the flavour (before possibly waking up the next day with a headache…)

But should you be buying whisky as an investment rather than as a consumable item?

Most people are aware of the leading share indexes around the world such as the FTSE 100 and the S&P 500 (which show the index for the largest 100 and 500 companies quoted on the London and New York stock exchanges respectively) but there are also a number of other indexes out there.

These indexes measure movements and one of the more interesting ones is the Rare Whisky Apex 1000 which measures the price movement for rare scotch whisky.

It’s a significant market and last year there were rare whiskies sold at auction in the UK amounting to £9.6 million.

There was also a strong demand for rare whisky in Asia. In August last year a bottle of 1960 Japanese Karuizawa whisky was sold for over £80,000 which is a pretty significant figure for a bottle of whisky!

Back to the indexes though and the performance of the rare whisky index last year was impressive. It grew by 14%. Other indexes in comparison performed as follows in 2015:

FTSE 100 – down by 4.9%
S&P 500 – up by 0.7%
Gold index – fell by 10%.

So the increase in the Whisky index of 14% looks very good when compared to the major indexes but I guess there could be one problem.

Namely, if you’ve had a bit too much to drink and are looking for something to finish the evening off you’re more likely to drink some of your whisky investment than consume some of your share or gold investment.

Should this have been predicted?

Published on: 05 Feb 2016

Picture the scene. You set up a company with two of your university friends. Things are going well but as is often the case with start-ups the work is hard, the hours are long and there is no initial salary.

Chris Hill-Scott was one such entrepreneur who founded a tech start-up business back in 2008 together with fellow Cambridge University graduates Jon Reynolds and Ben Medlock.

After setting up the company and getting it off of the ground, Mr Hill-Scott decided that being an entrepreneur was not for him. He resigned as a director, left the business and transferred his shares in the company to Mr Reynolds and Mr Medlock in exchange for a bicycle.

We’ve all done things that we have regretted but in hindsight Mr Hill-Scott should have stayed in the company. He now works for the Government Digital Service creating websites and it has been reported that the average salary for that type of job is in the region of £55,000.

The two gentlemen he left behind in the company though have faced a different journey. The name of the company the guys set up is SwiftKey and although you may not have heard of the company, you have almost certainly used their technology.

SwiftKey developed the predictive text technology which suggests the next word a user is about to type on their smartphone or tablet. It has been incredibly successful and their software is used on more than 300 million smartphones and tablets around the world.

The company estimates that the software it developed has saved over 10 trillion keystrokes for its users. Let’s just think about that figure for a moment. 10 trillion keystrokes – that amounts to more than 100,000 years of typing time and represents an awful lot of thumb pain which has been avoided.

SwiftKey is an incredibly successful company and yesterday Microsoft purchased the business for £174 million (or in dollar terms, just over one quarter of a billion dollars).

Mr Reynolds and Mr Medlock will both make more than £25 million each whilst Mr Hill Scott will receive nothing from the sale as he transferred his shares in the business in exchange for a bicycle.

It’s not clear how much the bicycle is worth but I don’t think you have to be a technology expert to predict what words that Mr Hill-Scott was probably thinking when he heard the news the business he helped set up had been sold for £174 million and he had received nothing….

When is an ice cream not an ice cream?

Published on: 01 Feb 2016

It sounds like the start of a riddle but there’s an important underlying message. Namely, organisations should be monitoring the environment they are operating in to see if any changes could be impacting on their business.

A classic model for analysing the impact the external environment can have on an organisation is the PESTEL model. Those of you that are thinking of studying for your professional exams will possibly be thinking that it stands for Parties, Eating, Sleeping, Talking, Entertaining and Laughing but if you’ve passed your exams then you are probably more comfortable with the fact that it stands for Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal.

Whilst all the components of this model can be important, one area which is particularly topical is the “social” component.

Within the social component one change which a lot of countries are currently seeing is people’s increased health awareness and the increase in demand for vegetarian (no meat) and vegan (no meat or dairy) food.

Ben & Jerry’s is one of the world’s leading ice cream companies and they no doubt have a very sophisticated approach to monitoring the environment. One of the more impressive things they’ve done recently is to launch some new products which will appeal to the vegan market.

If you are a vegan, then you don’t eat meat or dairy products and whilst you are unlikely to find an ice cream made out of chicken you are extremely likely to find an ice cream made out of milk.

Ben & Jerry’s though have nicely got around this problem by recently launching 4 flavours of vegan ice cream.

“How can they be vegan if they are ice cream?” I hear you say.

Well, they are all made with almond milk as opposed to dairy milk. Now technically that means they are frozen desserts and not ice cream but I can’t see any vegan being particularly upset about that.

The vegan flavours are Chunky Monkey, Chocolate Fudge Brownie, Coffee Caramel Fudge and PB & Cookies.

If you’re like me and love ice cream, then the Ben & Jerry’s advert below will probably make you feel a peckish but there is some bad news. At the moment, the only country the vegan ice cream is available in is America so if like me you’re living in another country then you will have to wait longer before getting your fix of vegan ice cream.

The ExP Group