Opinion Messagology Terminology can have many different meanings and interpretations...
GEORGE OSBORNE CHOSE to join Twitter on Budget Day, enabling millions of people to quiz one of the most powerful men in Britain. Or for the less enamoured, to vent their spleen and fire a torrent of abuse at him. Regardless of political bent, however, it proves that people increasingly choose to communicate in 140 character soundbites and headlines. Remarkably, it took three
years, two months and one day for the first billion tweets to be sent. There are now 400 million tweets sent every day. But what do those tweets say? And what do they say about us? While some use social
media to boast about their little darlings’ accomplishments at school, some use it for more serious business. Years ago, news would break on TV and radio updates. Today, news invariably breaks through
the immediacy of social media in our constantly connected world. Social media doesn’t
replace traditional information and media channels, but we should not underestimate its powerful place today. In an environment of information overload, it may be considered empowering to practise the art of concise communication to get a point across, so long as we remember it is only one channel of a plethora available in our communications toolkit. We should, however, remain mindful that what we say isn’t necessarily what people hear. Terminology can have very different meanings and interpretations.
Running some business
travel education sessions at an exhibition in Abu Dhabi recently, it was apparent that some of the buyers in the audience operated under a very different
infrastructure, with different business drivers and goals. They interpreted industry phraseology and processes differently compared to what might be considered standard in the western business travel arena. It proves that testing understanding of our communications is vital to ensure everyone is moving in the same direction to achieve any common goal, including whether you even have a common goal. Despite the explosion of social media into the fabric of global life, personal interaction remains a fundamental part of successful business to be able to factor and accommodate cultural and infrastructure differences. Upcoming regional ACTE
forums in London, April 30 and October 8; Dubai May 21; Moscow June 17; Stockholm September 19, and throughout
AN INVESTMENT, NOT A COST Revenue and growth should be the main drivers of travel policy
SO – THE BUDGET came and went, and there were exclamations of disappointment from the travel industry that the reviled air passenger duty (APD) was not just staying with us, but increasing. Since I arrived at the Guild of Travel Management Companies at the beginning of this year, the mantra has been: travel is an investment not a cost. I’d like to explain where I’m
coming from with this. When economic times are tough, a significant amount of influence is given to those that count money – in the case of government it’s the Treasury, and in the case of businesses it’s the finance departments. This is not for commercial ends – the drive of the finance departments is to cut costs, save money and stay within budget, whereas the commercial part of the equation
is driven by building revenues and investing in growth. Over the last 15 years,
corporate travel budgets have increasingly been taken over by procurement and the chief financial officers (CFOs) – in my view the wrong departments. Procurement is an essential part of the contract negotiations, but the travel programmes should sit under a commercial responsibility, which can be accountable for the revenue it produces. Travel budgets are currently measured by how much you can save, or how many trips you can get, for the same or less money. But it’s a downward spiral hindering export and growth. Travel budgets instead should be measured by how much revenue is brought into a company. So what has this got to do with APD? Well, the government
has not heard anyone provide a guarantee that a reduction of APD will increase the bank balance of UK plc. Yes, they have had the excellent Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) report that estimates the economy would be £16 billion better off by 2015 were APD to be scrapped, but it has ifs and buts in the wording. Can we be certain that finance departments in businesses would spend the APD saving on more business trips to drive growth, or would they just bank the savings themselves? Has anyone asked? If CFOs in the UK went on record saying they would spend the saving on investment in more travel – and talk to the Treasury about it – then there may be a chance that common sense, backed by financial commitment, would resolve the issue.
The ACTE column
Europe, will help identify relevant local market challenges and help understand the business language used to improve global programme performance. Join industry leaders from across the buy-and-supply chain at the ACTE Global Conference in Barcelona on October 20-22 to share ideas, so you can continue to deliver optimum results to your board.
Caroline Allen is the Association of Corporate Travel Executives’ regional director. For more information visit
www.acte.org or contact
callen@acte.org
The GTMC column
So, in summary, in order to
remove APD and get the UK into a positive competitive mindset, my theory is that we should have CFOs make a commitment to the Treasury that APD savings will be invested in revenue-driving business trips that will deliver the numbers suggested by the PWC report, and that the management of business travel should be moved into commercial departments, trusting the procurement teams, travel managers and TMCs to work closely together to make export growth affordable.
Paul Wait is chief executive of the Guild of Travel Management Companies
115
www.buyingbusinesstravel.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156