What advertising can't fix

A Reuters report Church of England law relaxes wedding rules reveals that a new British law came into force in October making it easier for couples to get married in Anglican churches.

Previously, couples could only get married in a church if they worshipped there regularly, lived in the parish or applied for a special license. Under the new rules, couples can choose to get married in a place with a special connection for themselves or their families.

According to Stephen Cottrell, the Bishop of Reading: "Getting married in church just got easier. People who are serious about getting married naturally want a marriage ceremony and a setting which is equally serious." This report story reminded me of a recent blog post from marketing guru Seth Godin called What advertising can't fix and the following cartoon from Tom Fisburne.

With due respect to the good Bishop, marriage rates in Britain are at the lowest level since records began. According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of people choosing to sign up for a state marriage fell in 2005 by 10 per cent, producing the lowest marriage rates since they were first calculated in 1862. In the words of British think-tank Civitas:

It is not too extreme to talk about the death of marriage.

The Church of Enlgand deserves credit for relaxing rules that some of its flock may have found cumersome, but it does not change the fact that state marriage is a contaminated brand managed by a self-serving, state-backed monopoly known as the 'family law system'. Marriage rates have halved since the family system took over state marriage in the mid 1970s; according to the UK Independent, the last state marriage will be performed sometime in 2033

The terminal decline of state marriage is not a demand problem but a supply problem; it's not that people don't want to get married (every opinion poll and survey says most do); it's that there is currently only one type of marriage currently available (and it's a rubbish product). The wonder is not that fewer people are signing their names to the state marriage contract; it's that so many are still doing so. But, as the statistics show, it won't be for a whole lot longer.

Few would disagree with Bishop Stephen Cottrell when he says that people who are serious about getting married "want a marriage ceremony and a setting which is equally serious". But should they also not want a marriage contract that is serious: a contract they have choosen for themselves, not a non-negotiable deal imposed by the state? A contract for two, commited people - and without a state-backed monopoly as a dominant and abusive third partner.

continue reading »

Nationalised: cars and marriage

"A decade without quality control" is how the 1960s were once described by US journalist PJ O'Rourke. But if you're searching for an era in recent history when some less than entirely sensible ideas took hold in the minds of the powerful, you'd need to skip forward a decade later to the 1970s. In Britain, two particularly daft events stand out: the nationalisation of marriage in 1973 and the nationalisation two years later of the car industry.

Yesterday's Sunday Times features a review of Downing Street Diary: Volume Two: With James Callaghan in No 10. Author Bernard Donoughue was then head of Prime Minister James Callaghan's No 10 Policy Unit, and so had an insider's view of life at the top.

As reviewer Dominic Lawson puts it: "Sometimes an entire era can be summed up in a single anecdote. It is September 1978, and the private office of prime minister James Callaghan decides that his official cars need replacing. Naturally they must be supplied by the state-owned car manufacturer." In Donoughue's own words, here is what happened next:

"Two cars were ordered specially from British Leyland. They took a long time to arrive. When they finally came they were found to have THIRTY-FOUR mechanical faults and had to be sent back to be repaired and made safe. Then they were sent to be converted to the PM's special safety needs - bombproof, bulletproof etc. This all cost a vast sum of money. When they returned, the PM went for a trip in one. He decided to open the window for some fresh air and pressed the button which does this electronically. The result was that the window immediately fell in on his lap. The PM has now said that he does not wish to see the new cars again ... we have the problem of what to do with two large expensive cars with a quarter of million pounds' worth of security extras.”

Reviewer Dominic Lawson continues: "In this one paragraph of Donoughue's diary of his three years as Callaghan's chief policy advisor we learn all we need to know about the state of Britain 30 years ago. The incompetent strike-ridden car company was so confident that it could continue leeching the taxpayer, it was content to deliver a pile of junk to the man who was actually signing off the subsidies."

"Thirty years on, there is no longer any British-owned car mass-manufacturer. An Indian firm now owns Jaguar; but their windows don't fall into the laps of their customers ... So when you read articles comparing the current state of the British economy with the 1970s, be reassured: nothing, absolutely nothing, in the British industrial economy is run as badly as it was 30 years ago."

Well, nothing except the state marriage system, that is. Two years before it became the majority shareholder in British Leyland the UK government, through The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, became the dominant partner in every marriage contract. As Labour MP Nigel Spearing expressed it in 1996:

There are three partners in marriage … I refer to the two people concerned and to the state .. society or the community as a whole. The House of Commons is the centre of law-making for that community. It is, therefore, a triangular arrangement and not just one between two people.”

Britain's car industry limped along for 30 years after its nationalisation in 1975, the final end coming in 2005 when MG Rover went into administration with huge debts. How long will state marriage survive? Based on current trends this article in the Independent predicts that the last state marriage will be celebrated in 2033. Sometime in that year the 1970s-nationalised, state marriage system will have its final British Leyland moment.

continue reading »

Innovation in partnering, parenting

Jeremy Gutsche said it right. As CEO of TrendHunter.com, a global network that tracks and anticipates innovation in areas such as pop culture, fashion, technology, art and lifestyle, Jeremy knows where to look when seeking to find innovation.

In every industry innovation starts by observing customers

You can check out Jeremy's insightful Slideshare presentation below.

| View | Upload your own

In the realms of partnering and parenting one social trend is clear: the three-decade long replacement of marriage with cohabitation. In the UK, for example:

• The number of cohabiting couples increased by two-thirds over the decade 1996-2006, and by 2031 the number will double to 3.8 million.
• Cohabiting couples and single-parent households will outnumber married couples by 2014.

But not all ‘customers’ are the same. According to the diffusion of innovations theory developed by Everett M. Rogers, consumers can be grouped according to how quickly they adopt a new product, service or idea.

Thirty years ago, couples living together outside marriage were regarded as ‘visionaries’; ten years ago, as ‘early adopters’; now, in every developed country, cohabiting couples are the ‘early majority’.

In every developed country, it is not couples married to each other but partners living together that form the fastest-growing family type.

Cohabiting couples: from non-marriage to new marriage

Once cohabitation was merely the absence of marriage; now, slowly but surely, it is becoming a search for a new marriage. The first steps across the bridge from non-marriage to new marriage is the so-called 'cohabitation contract': a legal agreement, defined by the couple, that sets out their responsibilities to one another.

In June 2007 I took a screenshot of a Google search for 'cohabitation contract'. The number of results found was 793. Just twelve months later the number has more than trebled to 2,690.

What family law has taken out of marriage – mutual commitment – a still-small but fast-growing number of couples are putting back in. In innovation terms, they are the relationship ‘innovators’. Soon the ‘early adopters’ will join them, to be followed by the ‘early majority’.

The path to WeDo Marriage

But a cohabitation contract is just the first step towards a new marriage; to complete the transition, something more is needed: the wholesale rebuilding, outside the family law system, of a marriage that meets the description so eloquently expressed below by Professor Linda J. Waite.

continue reading »

Making meaning, building success

Do you believe in your work? If not, why do it? If it’s routine or empty, or doesn’t challenge you to live up to your potential – then what’s the point?

In our view no one has better made the connection between work and motivation than Guy Kawasaki: entrepreneur, investment banker, venture capitalist and author.

The core of entrepreneurship is to make meaning. Those companies that are fundamentally founded to change the world – to make meaning – are the companies that make a difference, the companies that succeed.

So what is this ‘meaning’ all about then, Guy?

Making meaning is the most powerful motivator there is. (But) meaning is not about money, power, or prestige. It’s not even about creating a fun place to work.
       Among the meanings of ‘meaning’ are: to make the world a better place; to increase the quality of life; to right a terrible wrong; and to prevent the end of something good.

Preventing the end of something good

Every survey and opinion poll tells us that today’s couples still seek marriage. As an idea, a sought-after goal, marriage is not dead but is still very much alive.

But the choices today's couples are making in their lives also tell us something else: they want marriage. They just don’t want the only version of marriage that’s available from the only people who currently supply it: the family law system.

If marriage is to have a future then it can only be outside the family law system, for the past tells us that marriage certainly has no future within it. What is called family law has 'protected' marriage to death. Life will come back to marriage when couples are enabled to create marriages that are protected from the family law system.

From The Art of Start by Guy Kawasaki on YouTube.

continue reading »