Hill was a smart man.

Scotland boasts massive potential in life sciences, informatics, computer sciences, we’re number one in the world in the field of space science, for God’s sakes, but potential without the knowledge and experience and ambition to commercialise it is nothing. It’s empty posturing. Worthless.

There are dozens, scores of excited, ambitious tech start-ups being born in academic incubators across the country, but our lack of collective ability to nurture and grow these fledgling businesses into healthy, hungry for success, global entities is failing each and every one of them.

Events like Engage Invest Exploit and TechCrunch are crucial in the bid to bring academia, business and young tech entrepreneurs together. But it’s not enough.

Until academia and their students engage with businesses in the lecture halls and laboratories and learn the nuts and bolts of Business 101, then there will always be a virtually insurmountable challenge when spinouts and start-ups approach the business community for money and support.

Tech entrepreneur Gavin Littlejohn of Money Dashboard summed it up perfectly when he said what’s missing is an understanding amongst wannabe entrepreneurs of what it actually takes to trigger investment.

CEO of Money Dashboard – which has raised £1.6 million in equity and grants since 2006 – Littlejohn knows from experience that it’s not just about nurturing and training great technologists, but involving people who are natural marketers, who can engage with an investor and explain passionately why they need to be on board.

Experienced investors will bring smart money, but you need to be able to convince them first. That gap is why so few start-ups emerge from the formative stages into the post launch phase.

I watched and listened to six tech start-ups pitch to an investor panel at EIE’10 last week and was hugely disappointed. Not in the quality of the ideas (although some of them were clearly head-and-shoulders above the others), but in the quality of the presentations.

The presentations were limited to six slides. Now that’s where my first issue arises. PowerPoint kills a presentation stone dead. Prezi, (used by only one company, which is surprising in such a technologically advanced arena), is infinitely better. But all six presenters lacked charisma, passion, ambition, enthusiasm, clarity of thought and an inherent understanding of how to present an investor-ready business proposition and attract genuine “I want to part with my hard-earned cash” interest.

Their ability to engage with businessmen and women – potential investors – was seriously flawed. Not one squared up to the audience, announced who he was (and they were all ‘he’), said clearly this is the solution we provide, this is why it’s going to be successful, this is what we need, and this is what you will get in return.

No, instead we got intricate details of the technical acuities of the product, or micro statistics about the market demographics. They used all six minutes allowed to say an awful lot without saying anything compelling at all. Nice guys, all of them, but on the basis of their performances I wouldn’t give them a penny.

There’s a genuine willingness to improve on all sides, but can academia and business (and the public sector) truly work together? Well there’s a lot still to be done if the comments at Wednesday’s EIE’10 event were to be believed. A radical suggestion from one academic to pool Intellectual Property from all Scotland’s universities didn’t go down well, yet the idea – which would significantly benefit businesses and start-ups across the country – has real merit.

There is plenty of angel investor support in Scotland, and there is a surprising amount of public sector support too. But there seems to be nothing linking them together – and that’s where I see the business sector offering the most value.

Business men and women need to engage with start-ups in the lecture theatre, the ICT suite, the laboratories, sharing their knowledge and wisdom, and guiding these future business superstars from the very moment they have that Eureka moment.

Who’s responsible for making this happen? I don’t know. But I’d happily be involved in the process. Let the debate begin …

You can read my Scotland on Sunday column about this topic here: http://bit.ly/tartancatcolumn

And, topically, king of the bloggers Seth Godin posted a comment this morning about the fine line between arrogance and confidence (http://sethgodin.typepad.com). It might be just one of the reasons there are more successful entrepreneurs in America than Scotland.

How would it be if we all had to start from scratch, to choose who we want to follow and who we want to follow us?

I suspect it would be harder than most of us would appreciate.

Could you remember everyone you were following? Everyone you engaged with? Sure, it might be easy to remember those you communicated every day. But what about the less regular conversations, those you communicated with weekly or even monthly. Would you remember them? I doubt it. More importantly, would they remember you?

Given the choice, would you really chose to engage with them again? And, faced with the same choice, would they chose to engage with you again?

So perhaps, just perhaps, it’s a convenient reminder that Twitter and all its social media communication buddies need work but crucially need thought and attention. We need to care about what we are saying, we need to care about why we are saying it, and we need to care about who we say it to. And we need to remember who they are and why they might be interested in us.

Just saying …

But what I did notice after attempting to ReTweet everyone, is that it’s really difficult to do if you use all 140 characters available; it means there’s no room for anyone else to comment, praise or add value.

So just a wee suggestion, consider 14o as a limit, not a target, and leave a few characters spare!

To save them all for posterity – and for anyone out there who needs the benefit of your business acumen – they’re all re-posted below: Loving them all.

@MacRoberts – One of Scotland’s pre-eminent law firms. Everything we do is driven by our objective to secure the success of our clients.

@BAIRDSTRAVEL – West End Walks of Glasgow Arrive as a tourist leave as a friend

@AileenLamb – I help tourism companies collaborate & develop new ideas – to grow profits and deliver unforgettable customer experiences

@rickynic – Commsworld help businesses reduce costs and improve voice and data communications

@BriCallAssist – Call Assistant UK is a forward thinking contact centre dealing with all your business communications, and we’re good at it

@IntermezzoArts – Offer private viewings of art galleries/museums across Scotland including Night at the Museum in Kelvingrove!

@2ourism – I passionately help tourism businesses make less mistakes & more money from their online strategy

@TomCayman – I help clients make their business ROCK!!!

@DunningDesign – Creating Sparks in a ’360 degree’ media environment, our use of strategy, creativity & technology makes you stand out from the crowd!

@debutmarketing – I help small businesses identify their target markets and communicate with them in a focused and effective way

@andrewghayes – Getting travellers out of their armchair and getting small travel businesses out of their shell

@MikeRitchiePR Offer comprehensive PR support/strategy to boost clients’ public profile positively in print, broadcast, social media outlets

@jackiecameron1 – getting you talking – online and out loud

@glasgowdotcom – offering visitors & advertisers the choice to communicate with each other from our range of 2500 websites focused in local global search

@juliebee – I write words and take pictures

@moviecom.tv – the online tv channel for SME businesses to engage with the online video revolution and it’s FREE Www.Moviecom.tv

@NSDesign – NS Design help organisations succeed online.

@drivetraining – help clients increase sales, improve customer service and develop their managers

@jmarkow – MarkowMedia creates strategies, opportunities and solutions for businesses through the practice of applied design thinking

@29studios.com – provide professional online video services to promote your business. Film-Edit-Deliver to the world for only £199

@theintelligiser – Intelligise – Converging Sales, Marketing and Social Media into one strategy to create Rapid Sales and Profit Growth

@jailhouserock – Calligrafix solve problems with a fusion of Computer Science + Design = software powering large websites

@kevashcroft (OCD) – We provide peace of mind IT support with provable quality / ROI, for businesses and charities in Scotland and Northern England.

@Belazir  - Business & IT Troubleshooter. Great Research, Communications, Support and IT Services.

@ScottishRoutes – “Specialists in tailor-made and distinctive tours of Scotland. Scottish Routes: Explore Scotland Your Way.”

@Blueprint_Media – We will help your business punch above its weight in the media. Simple.

@heatheralex – Clearsight Consulting helps its clients avoid expensive mistakes when buying IT stuff (web, systems, services)

@nowaffle – No nonsense, straight talking business support; delivers improved profits & improved performance in 24hours

Have you been there? Can you feel my pain? I’m sure I’m not the only one who visits a potential client and then twiddles her thumbs while he/she takes half an hour to tell me all about the business.

Creating a concise elevator pitch is said to be essential. That’s fine when you are pitching for business or investment, but I think we need to get a lot smarter and quicker at communicating what we do and how great we are at doing it.

I used to suggest businesses created a list of soundbites that could describe their business in short, memorable, meaningful sentences. Little chunks of information that employees could remember, that would keep CEO’s on track when they are explaining what they do, ultimately, soundbites that keep the company message – and brand – consistent.

That’s still valid, but I now also suggest to clients that they try to do it Twitter-style – in no more than 140 characters. You should try it!

This is mine: I have the best job in the world, I help people grow their businesses by helping them communicate better. It’s 87 characters.

At my Power Lunch Club talk last week, I suggested one for Kevin O’Neil’s business: Moviecom.tv YouTube for Business We are revolutionising how businesses communicate.  That’s 83 characters, There’s room to say And we’re really good at it  That’s 112 . There’s even room for an exclamation mark or two.

Try doing yours; and let me know how you get on.

When I was asked to speak to members of the Power Lunch Club last week, I decided to speak about communications. It’s what I know best.

It was only really in the planning for the speech that I actually appreciated I’ve been learning subconsciously about communications since I could speak (and believe me, as soon as I learned how to do that I rarely shut up). If you’ll indulge me I’ll share what I’ve learned along the way.

Communications lesson number 1: For a long time I believed that communication was what happened to you when you were growing up, parents, teachers, ancient relatives, talking at you and not expecting you to answer back. At college, where I studied journalism, it was pretty much the same; lecturers telling you how to do things that they were clearly no longer capable of doing in the real world and getting paid for it.

Communications lesson number 2: The first realisation that communication was different was in my first newspaper job. I had a grumpy, old editor who taught me you have to listen to what’s been said, then listen to what’s not been said, and then listen to what everyone else thinks, then listen a bit more, and then ask a question – and repeat. Invaluable.

Communications lesson number 3: After I started freelancing for Scottish national newspapers, I became Scotland’s first female football reporter covering a premier division match every weekend for the Sunday Mail. That’s when I learned it was okay to shut out some communications: in this case what was being said about me in the fanzines and on the terraces – particularly the chants about me!

Communications lesson number 4: I was the first western journalist into Albania – accompanying an aid convoy from Shetland for a Daily Express series of features – and encountered a similar situation to Ceaucescu’s Romania. Children, old people, families, living in appalling poverty; that’s when I learned that communication on it’s own isn’t enough.

Communications lesson number 5: Being a news reporter and filing copy – that was a communication challenge – you had to find a phone box/ phone a grumpy, and usually pissed copytaker, and build your story – off the top of your head, referring only to notes for quotes, ages, and spelling of names.

Communications lesson number 6: I left newspapers to work with my then husband at Voice and Data – an award-winning communications company, specialising in cabling, computer network installations, training, maintenance and support. We bootstrapped the business to a million pounds turnover in less than four years on a £5k overdraft – that’s when I learned that true communication with banks will never ever happen.

Communications lesson number 7: Our spectacular success was followed by spectacular failure (if you’re interested I’ll explain what happened in another blog). Suffice to say we were approached by two suitors – so what did we do? We communicated with our staff, built our own “culture-fit” matrix against which they were judged and then asked the potential buyers to come and talk to our staff. They were gobsmacked. Communications with employees are as important – if not more so – than communications with potential buyers!

Communications lesson number 8: I worked as group head of communications for the company that bought us from the liquidators. My first task was to audit the company’s communications; they didn’t have any. I spoke to literally hundreds of the 800 staff – unheard of – and the dialogue generated hundreds of fantastic service improvements.

Communications lesson number 9: I learned I was really a crap employee, so I left to launch Tartan Cat – my first communications consultancy – where I learned from listening to clients that it’s not just about communicating with staff, the media, shareholders, it’s also about the suppliers; customer service can’t be delivered unless you keep them in the loop, as if they were part of your business. And it’s also about the wider community, involving them in what you do and being an integral part of supporting them.

Communications lesson number 10: I decided to take a few years out to be with my daughter; now that was possibly the biggest ever communication challenge, being a single mum with a daughter who could have been cloned from me we’re so alike. When I master that particular aspect of communication, I’ll share it with everyone and make a fortune.

Communications lesson number 11: I came back to work with the launch of Brazen UK, a communications and business development consultancy with an HR expertise. First job we won two weeks after our launch was project managing a pilot partnership between the MoD and the occupational health arm of the NHS.  Now if there were two organisations that should never work together it would be those two. One’s completely beaurocratic and the other totally hierarchical. We thought it would be a communications mission impossible – without the added benefit of eye candy in the form of Tom Cruise. Not so. It was incredibly successful with the award of a proper contract, won from under the noses of companies like Serco, Capita and Atos. I learned that you can always find a way to communicate in innovative ways that works for everyone.

Communications lesson number 12: Which brings us to where we are today. I have the lucky fortune to be both working in and writing about business.  I think ultimately, after all I’ve learned to date, is that the single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has actually taken place.

“I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realise what you heard is not what I meant.”

In truth, communication is simple; we need trust, openness, transparency, honesty and we need to be really clear about what we want to say, how we want to say it, and to whom.

And if we can have some fun while we’re doing it, all the better.

It seems we’re not just poor at educating our kids (see my previous blog) we are just as poor at preparing them for life in the big bad world of work.

The President of the Institute of Career Guidance (ICG), Dr Deirdre Hughes warned that there is a generation leaving university now that hasn’t had the benefit of a high-quality careers education.

No shit, Sherlock! It hasn’t changed since I left school many moons ago when, despite my passion for writing and a determined ambition to become a journalist, my careers advisor suggested that might be too difficult to get into and that I should consider a career as a librarian instead. I suspect those of you who know me are ROFLYAO right now.

Dr Hughes says young people aren’t developing the knowledge and skills of the labour market and she’s right; it’s a wider issue than just helping academic students fill out university applications or advising the not so academic kids how to find the nearest benefits office.

Careers advice needs to start in primary school. Call it something else, something more exciting and intriguing to little people, but start educating them about work, teaching them at an early age how to consider information and then make decisions, and encouraging them to develop confidence in themselves and their abilities.

When second year pupils are faced with making subject choices, they should be able to do so themselves; without pressure from parents and teachers, and with as much information as possible about the potential business application of the subjects they are choosing. They need to be able to make choices based on the subjects they like best, not just the ones they are good at, because they are not always the same thing. I’d love to see a Myers-Briggs type psychological profile developed for specifically for kids when they are making these life-molding subject and career choices.

In Scotland we already have a strong focus on entrepreneurship education, which is great. Presenting entrepreneurship as a career choice is hugely important, as is giving students practical experience and access to successful entrepreneurs who can share their knowledge, passion, enthusiasm and ambition.

But not everyone can be or wants to be an entrepreneur and we need to revamp how we demonstrate other workplace opportunities in a more compelling way than we do currently with lame “Take your kid to work” days, and half-hearted attempts to encourage “work experience”, which neither benefit the pupil nor the company.

Pupils also need to be able to consider their choices against a backdrop picture of the economy now, and in the future. They need to know where the skills gaps are now and where they will be, to know about trends in technology and science and manufacturing. They need to know where in the world the best jobs in their chosen career will be so they can choose languages accordingly.

This link to trends in business, technology, social media, engineering, manufacturing etc is missing right now. It needs to be introduced in schools and it needs to be introduced into universities, who must tailor their courses according to what business and industry needs now and anticipates for the future. We don’t need more lawyers or accountants, we need more technologists, chemists and scientists, so adjust student intake and introduce new courses accordingly.

Students in secondary and tertiary education need to be taught how to market themselves, how to build a portfolio of skills and experience, where to look for jobs (newspapers are no longer the best source for adverts), how to demonstrate their advantage over others, and how to engage effectively with potential employers.

Last month the Department for Children Schools and Families said it will launch a careers profession taskforce with a goal to create “a careers workforce fit for the 21^st Century”.

I have to say, I’d love a non-exec role in that organisation. Call me!

So it was with growing despair – and a touch of equinophobia – I read this week that two-thirds of 13-year-olds are currently failing to reach expected standards of writing.

According to the Scottish Survey of Achievement (SSA), performance steadily declines after primary three, when almost all pupils are achieving to expectations.

It’s a shocking indictment on our education system and the quality of our teachers. The long-term implications of this poor academic performance are severe: it will undoubtedly impact our economy and the future workforce, which is already limited by significant skills shortages in key labour areas.

Business surveys regularly carried out by the FSB and Chambers of Commerce reveal members are experiencing skills shortages, in technical, literacy, communication, customer service and numeracy skills. That literacy and numeracy skills are in short supply is clearly a direct result of our failing education system.

There is also a strong correlation between educational qualifications and industry sector, with many of the professional service-based businesses in particular being led by degree-educated and professionally qualified owners. But if our pupils are leaving school unable to read, write and count properly they are unlikely to progress to higher education, and even less likely to be in a position to run a business. It’s apparent that business – and ultimately the economy – is going to suffer.

So how do we fix it? Well proposals announced this week by the Scottish Government to regularly assess teachers throughout their career to check they are still competent in the classroom is a start, although to be honest, I’m stunned it isn’t done already. Running such an important system with no quality control is just wrong.

But reaccreditation to maintain standards is only one aspect. I suspect we need to go back to the roots and look at the quality of the individuals we are recruiting into teacher training in the first place.

We need to focus on the schoolgirl or boy who decides that they want to teach when they grow up. We need to focus on how their education and motivation is encouraged and supported throughout school, college or university and the training process through which they all must go before being let loose on our little darlings. We just don’t focus at all on the crucial personality and character traits that make a good teacher.

For a start the selection process should be much stricter. Getting a few straight As in English, maths and perhaps a science just isn’t enough. What about their skills in creativity? Their ability to communicate? The warmth and encouragement they exude in the classroom? Are they dedicated to educational excellence and passionate about their subject? Or do they just fancy a reasonable salary and more holidays than they could possibly know what to do with?

The system needs a radical overhaul. Would-be teachers should be trained in communications skills. They should understand (not just be taught, there’s a difference) how little brains work and learn. They should be encouraged to use their creative right brain just as much as their academic left brain. They should be passionate about their subject and innovative in its delivery.

Then they should face another selection process – to assess if they have reached the standard expected of them before they start one of the most important jobs in the world.

Once in the job, continual assessment of teachers is crucial and feedback from pupils and parents would be invaluable in that process. We’ve got school league tables, so what about teacher league tables? If they don’t make the grade, they’re relegated – out of the education system.

We need to get really serious about this. Our future and that of our children and their children depends on these people and I don’t think we give them what they need in order to do the very best by our kids.

The government must tackle every tier of the education system to get to the root of the skills problem. Poor education and skills training will hinder Scotland’s ability to grow its economy and compete as a significant player on the international stage; and low overall unemployment figures disguise the fact there are pockets of high economic inactivity existing in parallel with businesses being prevented from expansion as a result of high local and sectoral levels of hard-to-fill vacancies.

For too long, businesses have been left to finish off the work of the school system and deal with people’s problems with the most basic skills.

Government clearly needs to work closely and effectively with business to develop an education system that works for everyone concerned, teachers, pupils and future employers.

You probably think it’s a strange topic for a “burd” (to quote an old favourite footie star), but I love football. I have done since I was a wee tot, learning to read the football scores on TV at teatime.

Bearing in mind my formative years were spent in Manchester, I had to learn to read both Premiership and SPL team names. I watched eagerly for Rangers’ results, my first team and then those of Manchester United, my English team. My dad, a sports journalist, used to encourage my interest, cultivate my knowledge. He taught me the intricacies, the subtleties and the rules of the beautiful game, as well as the obscenities, songs and memorable referee insults, of course.

Doubtless if he were alive today he, as a qualified referee, would have relished the irony that Scottish match officials are sponsored by Specsavers. As a terrific goalkeeper in his heyday (nicknamed the “Black Cat”), however, I suspect he might be less impressed by the current trend for diving and false claims.

Thanks to my dad I understand the offside rule clearly. I know about long balls, lobs and crosses, what makes a foul shy and what constitutes a straight red. I love the tension of penalty kicks, and would actually like to see the rules changed to cut out extra time and go straight to penalty kicks in the event of a draw. And despite my hereditary blue nose I can be relatively impartial too, recognising and praising good play from opposing teams and willing any Scottish club to victory in Europe.

But as managers, players and, perhaps most greedily, agents prepare for the transfer window to close again it made me wonder what, if anything, business can learn from football’s operating practices – and vice versa.

There are obvious similarities. Clubs, like businesses, can make – and lose – lots of money. A manager – football or business – has objectives, goals, stakeholders, financiers, customers, staff, and has to contend with juggling (not literally, of course) lots of balls.

The fans/customers want a result. The staff/players work hard to deliver, and the financiers and stakeholders want a return on their investment. There’s a huge amount of training, coaching and people development required in both. Teamwork is paramount.

The manager has to take responsibility and go if the team doesn’t deliver, but therein lies my first challenge. Why is it only the manager? He is responsible for picking the team, but they’ve got to keep up their end too.  Surely it’s just as important that they meet their objectives? In business there are appraisals and personal development interviews. What’s the football equivalent? A dressing room dressing down?

If business were given just two brief opportunities a year to recruit the best staff, how different would our recruitment and retention policies be? Managers and coaches in both business and football are given a brief to get results every time, but what if business managers were able to sideline those that have the skill but not the motivation and to substitute the ones who have given their all with those of fresh mind and renewed energy? What would the employment lawyers make of the threat of the sack if your business fails to score? How about an independent “referee” who decides what’s fair for your business and has the right to book or send off those he doesn’t think have played by the rules?  How would a top flight CEO fare when hundreds of thousands of customers are baying for his resignation?

But just as there are elements of the business of football that would give a much-needed kick up the arse to business, there are elements that, to me, just don’t make sense (and that means a lot, since I understand the offside rule). I genuinely think football could learn here from business.

The most frustrating, and incomprehensible, bit is the football club’s approach to key players. As soon as they are good enough, they sell them.  Am I naïve, or am I just being a girl? Since when did getting rid of your best team member, your key player, your most valuable asset, become the key to success?

I appreciate natural wastage – Davie Weir, God love him, is desperately hard-working but getting too old and Christian Dailly, well he was just too old – but recognising when it’s time to stop is just as important in business. Look at Neil Lennon and Ally McCoist, great players but they clearly knew the time to hang up their playing boots, put on a coaching hat and give something back to their clubs and their fans.

But while a player is at the top of his game, surely it makes sense to keep them in front of the team? Perhaps someone could explain to me why money in the bank – albeit to buy new, younger players – is more valuable than a top player at the peak of his ability who can transform a good team into an outstanding team?

As a Gers fan, I was gutted when Alan Hutton left Ibrox (or was he pushed?) to join Spurs and equally sad to see Carlos Cuellar head south. As a Gers fan, I won’t be gutted when Artur Boruc and Aiden McGeady leave Celtic to join United, Liverpool, Barca, whoever, as they surely will – and soon.

So as the football agents spend their last few hours frantically trying to squeeze a few more thousand into their deals before the window slams shut until the summer, why not have a look at your business from a football perspective; is there a member of staff you’d like to red card, or better still, transfer to the competition? Is there an employee performing outstandingly every day that you need to keep? And as a manager, will your customers want you to stay – or go?

Perhaps you should ask yourself: what would Walter do?

The neat little white and grey package with minimal black print and estate agent Strutt and Parker’s red logo said this: “It’s not every day a property agent gives something away. But then it’s not all agents who work their socks off on behalf of their clients. To discover how hard working we really are or to find your local office, visit www.struttandparker.com”.

Now it must be said, they are very large red socks, clearly meant for a man (are they assuming it’s the man of the house who is responsible for selling the family home? That’s a point to explore in another blog).

But I was impressed, let me tell you. What struck me was the “getting local” approach. Going to where the customer is, literally, right to their front door. Strutt and Parker has 42 branches across the UK, nearest to me is in Glasgow some 18.4 miles away. But someone came to my house, rather than emailing me or posting me a direct mailer or telephoning me.

It reminded me of a recent blog by Tom McCallum, an ex-pat Scot now living and working in the Cayman Islands (clearly no need for warm socks there, lucky so-and-so). The link to his blog is here – http://mccallumsolutions.com/2010-the-year-of-the-customer – but to summarise briefly, Tom believes the essence of Marketing 2.0 … don’t make the customer come to you, go to them.

Clearly in a time where digital, social, new media is focused on Tweeting and Facebooking and Linking In, profile raising with clever viral campaigns and must-have iPhone apps, it was truly refreshing to see a long-established business using traditional methods to great effect.

And it proved another concept that I now adhere to, that shared by author Scott McCloud (I found him quoted on Seth Godin’s blog) who believes that marketing is what happens in between the overt acts of the marketer. It’s what happens, he says, when you’re not trying, when you’re being transparent and when there’s no script in place.

He puts it like this:

“It’s not marketing when everything goes right on the flight to Chicago. It’s marketing when your people don’t respond after losing the guitar that got checked.

“It’s not marketing when I use your product as intended. It’s marketing when my friend and I are talking about how the thing we bought from you changed us.

“It’s not marketing when the smiling waitress appears with the soup. It’s marketing when we hear two waiters muttering to each other behind the serving station.”

Clearly, it’s not marketing to deliver a pair of red socks to your target market. It’s marketing when I share the story with others and say how much I liked the approach. And it’s marketing that works when I decide to sell my home and I call Strutt and Parker first.

I genuinely loved the gimmick. Indeed, I’m wearing said too-large socks now (I promise not to raise a lawsuit for personal injury when I trip over the toes) and I’ve shared this story with a number of business colleagues and friends (traditionally, using the personal communication method). I’m also blogging about it and I’ll be Tweeting a link to my blog (the new media approach).

It’s an important lesson in the need for balance between good old-fashioned marketing and good new-fangled marketing.

Find the one that suits your business best and go with it.

Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe women are extraordinarily special creatures that require extraordinarily special support in business just because they are women. I genuinely believe everyone in business faces the same tough challenges; the only difference is in how we approach the solution.

But to use career women as a foil for a cheap PR stunt is wrong. Worse, it’s demeaning and damaging. Shame on you.

I wrote the following column back in 2001 for the unfortunately now defunct Business AM and I’m surprised and disappointed that my opinion remains the same. Am I the backwards one here? Have I just missed the point of the PR stunt? Or have we really failed to progress over the past nine years?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. March 2001 column is reprinted below for your input…

I’M a working single mum. My day starts at 6.30am when I get up, feed the dogs, cats and fish then get showered and dressed before wakening my soon-to-be four year old daughter to get her ready for nursery. I drop her around 7.40am then exercise the dogs in the park before returning home to get ready to start work at 9am. At lunchtime I make the dinner for that evening, exercise the dogs again, return to work and finish around 5.15pm when I go to collect my daughter from nursery. I play with her, feed her, bath her, read her a story and cuddle her in bed till she falls asleep, usually around 7.30pm. Then I feed myself and sit back down at my desk to get through some more work before crashing into bed around 11pm. That’s after exercising the dogs in the garden before turning in for the night.  The alarm sounds too soon and it’s back on the treadmill all over again.

I work hard: I took just nine days maternity leave. But I devote quality time to my daughter. I feel guilty enough about working as it is without picking up my paper to read that a couple of male researchers believe I’m jeopardising my daughter’s future academic potential in the process. How dare they?

“Entitling parents to more time with young children can be justified as potential investment in the labour force of tomorrow”, said Professor John Ermisch, co-author of the report for the Rowntree Foundation. I don’t class myself as a female chauvinist, but that is a typical male comment.

Doesn’t he understand that without a labour force of today there won’t be a need for a labour force of tomorrow? The economy needs working mums.

Leaving your child in the care of somebody else when you return to work is probably one of the hardest things a mum can do. I get a pang every day I leave Jazz at nursery, I truly hate it. I don’t know a working mother who finds it easy. But for many mothers working full time is a necessity, not a choice. They need the money to care for their family and they shouldn’t be castigated for making that sacrifice.

Trundling out 30-year-old statistics is not helpful. And it certainly doesn’t give an accurate picture of the situation today.

What annoys me most is that studies like this produce lots of statistics and findings that can be manipulated virtually any way they want. Authors make sweeping generalisms – “the children of mothers who working during the all important pre-school years are less likely to pass A-levels and are more likely to be unemployed and to suffer psychological stress” – but all they do is raise a problem and then sit back to wait for the next research project to come along.

I want to know why they don’t take it one step further and offer solutions. Surely the whole point of doing research is to find a better way of doing something? Or am I just being naïve?

Suggesting that mums stay at home is hardly the solution the country needs. It doesn’t address the fact that business needs women in the workforce.

Whining about the effects on children doesn’t solve the problem either; it purely aggravates an already delicate situation. If it’s truly that important, then why not pay mums a good salary to stay at home with their children, not a miserable few pounds a week child benefit or family credit?

There are too many mixed messages out there. On the one hand we are told of the need to encourage women to return to the work force to meet the skills gap we are facing. On the other, we are told that would be detrimental to our children’s future.

Working mums have a crucial input to our economy, now and in the future. The government should be funding research into creating more innovative ways of making it possible – not just possible, easy – for women to work in a flexible environment, and for their children to receive quality childcare at a cost that doesn’t swallow up their take home pay.