why it's good not to 'niche'

There seems to be an 'accepted wisdom', lots of encouragement, and direction for us as freelancers, sole traders, and micro enterprises, and other types of businesses, to 'niche' - focus on one specialist thing and be the best at offering that. The logic we're given for this is that it will help make us more successful because:

1. it's then quicker and easier to explain what it is you do, and so be able to establish your brand, profile, etc with less effort;
2. it's easier to build a 'higher value' offer (i.e. make more money with less effort);
3. (and probably lots of other things that I forget, because I don't actually like the idea of 'niching' as you're about to learn, so I tend to block out the rest...)

BUT...

I don't 'niche' in what I offer as a business, and I'm not sure what circumstances might have to transpire for me to want to. That's because for me, the risks associating with niching are more than 'blown out of the water' by the benefits of my remaining a 'generalist':

1. Focusing on one thing means I wouldn't be using the full scope of the skill set that I've developed and identified I have over these last 20 years. Niching for me would me killing off parts of who I am and what I can do that might otherwise be interesting, useful, and fun.
2. I have an idea that niching ultimately offers less value to the clients, groups, and people I work with. Being a one-trick pony, however world-shatteringly good I'd be at it, would mean that I can't cross connect ideas and support from other themes and topics for them, to enhance the overall impact of my support to them (which would ultimately leave them poorer from the experience of my having walked alongside them for a time, than they are now).
3. Financially, niching is very risky. While it's true that the more niche you are, then the more likelihood you'd have of being able to have higher charge; the ultra-specialism of your focus and offer would mean that there are fewer potential overall clients who'd want or need your support. And they'd all be in largely the same place - which roughly means that all your eggs are in a single basket (or jars of tahini if you're a vegan), or who are all in same boat. If there's a recession, a shift in market trends, changes legislation or policy, etc, then you may find your market disappears overnight, with nowhere to easily turn to keep yourself going.

Reflecting on all of the above, I'm left wondering of niching is ultimately a 'cop out' for people who don't want to stretch themselves in building their skills as to what they might offer clients. Or if not, that they represent a group of people who are far happier and more comfortable to take risks than me?

If the former, then it's another example of how so many businesses are accepting the guidance they're offered at face value without questioning it, even if it means it's ultimately increasing the risk that they're fail in the future? If it's the latter, then I'm OK with being a relative scaredy-cat in comparison to them.

all business owners and entrepreneurs should do car-boot sales once in a while

Some readers of this blog may recall that in the past I've written about how I try and keep my hand in at running a market stall from time to time...

https://thirdsectorexpert.blogspot.com/2011/01/doing-del-boy.html 

But recently, I broke my car boot virginity, and with my wife (who's a more seasoned pro at these things) filled the back of the car and set off at crazy o'clock in the morning to unload the contents in a field alongside others, in hopes of being able to generate a few quid from things which we can't offer a home for anyone - but which we thought might still be of value and enjoyment to others.

And whilst standing in a field all day, hoping that passing strangers will stop by our pitch and help us not have quite so much stuff to re-pack into the car at the end of the day might not sound that appealing to some, it was an experience that I'm glad I indulged in (and will probably try and do again in the future):

- it highlighted the changing patterns in our society of how we consume/do business: for example, no-one buys CDs and DVDs, because these media are now available on streaming services;

- it re-enforced how hard it is to sell clothes (however cheaply you offer them), as fast fashion makes it so easy to buy on line (and have option to return without cost);

- and it also evidenced how increasingly time poor people are: comments from people in our neighbouring cars and pitches who've been doing it regularly for years, all agreed that there are far fewer people browsing than used to.

But, having a pitch at a car boot sale also reassured me that as much as things are changing (see above), some things will remain as true today and tomorrow as they did when I was a kid - 

* parents are always keen to encourage their kids to get into reading actual physical books;

* cash retains a place in how we do trade;

* and we'll always want an ice cream from the van...

an awkward question about how we're making sense of the pandemic...

As some people may know, I was quite active during the national lock-down earlier this year - supporting a range of colleges, businesses, social enterprise support bodies, and others to consider, plan, and then enact their respective responses to the first wave of the pandemic.

And as part of my own practice of 'professional reflection', rather than another 'pithy blog' or twitter snippets about what I'd done and thought about during this time, I thought I'd do something a little more in-depth, and draft a white paper. This paper is still available on-line (just share and confirm your email and it should automatically get sent to you). And I was surprised at not just how many people downloaded it within the first week of it going out but also the sheer variety of roles and sectors they represented.

Many who read it also kindly offered some thoughts as to how the paper had prompted them to think further on their own respective responses and current thinking about the coming 6 months. And in the spirit of trying to openly keep encouraging conversation and discussion, I elected to share the themes of these comments in a Facebook Live.

The Facebook live also served another purpose - to act as an addendum to the white paper: after all, a lot can happen in a few weeks during a pandemic, and more data is coming out all the time about how different communities and ways of working are being affected.

And just as the original white paper has attracted more interest than a dared to hope, the Facebook Live had more people watching the broadcast as it happened than I thought might have , and continues to be shared by others and the watch count keeps going up...! (If you missed it, here's the link to catch it again).

Now don't worry - there is a point to my regurgitating this precis of my new life as a one-man policy think-tank.

And it's this - based on how people engaged with the white paper, and the comments and ongoing interest to my Facebook Live, it seems to suggest that we're not satisfied in seeking answers from within our own usual circles. We're starting to realise the benefit of going 'outside' our own marketplaces, industries, and sectors in seeking perspectives and understandings. And when we do, what we find seems to generally help assure and better inform us about the ways in which we're now making decisions about the future.

So my closing challenge to you, dear reader, is this - who can you talk with, or what can you read, that is outside of your usual daily work or life in offering you a fresh perspective in helping you make your own sense of the ever-changing world we now find ourselves (trying to) live and work in?  

will current trends in csr ultimately see charities and social causes losing out..?

Corporate Social Responsibility ("csr" - or also, 'not being a d!ck') has been around for as long as there have been businesses : it's the equivalent of what companies do against our giving to charity or volunteering for causes important to us personally.

It's also something that can be mired in suspicion, scepticism, acclaim, legislation, policy, and so on - although interestingly, recent research by the Institute of Business Ethics finds that our trust in businesses to 'act ethically' is at all time highs (despite high profile backlashes to do with tax, and workers treatment, by some global firms...).

But in the main, the csr initiatives that companies 'do' (either gifts in kind, sponsorship, corporate volunteering, and such like) are at the direction of the business itself that's doing the giving - in much the same way that we as individuals decide which charities we want to give money to, or which causes to volunteer with.

A few years ago, a company in America called Tom's Shoes refined this csr model into a key plank of its marketing strategy: 'buy one pair of our shoes, and we'll give another pair to someone in need of shoes who can't otherwise afford them' (aka 'Buy 1 Give 1' - B1G1). This model of csr offered a way that we as individuals could more easily assuage any concerns that we have personally that we should somehow be trying to do more to give to those in need, without having to actually give anything, or make any effort beyond our usual consumer purchases (some might say, a very effective way that the private marketplace has made it easier to be philanthropic painlessly).

Subsequently, this model of B1G1 has been adopted by lots of other companies and platforms, even though studies suggest that this model of philanthropy may ultimately actually do more harm than good.

But Tom's shoes has now revisited it's csr model in a way that makes me think that we may be starting to see a sea-change in the face of csr (and possibly to the detriment of the charities and causes we want to try and support) - the company is now offering customers the choice over what the value of that other pair of shoes that are being gifted should be used for: either giving a pair away as before, or contributing to a choice of social causes that the customer can pick.

Now, this model of customers choosing the recipient of a company's philanthropy isn't entirely new: the Co-operative Group, and Tesco stores invite shoppers to vote for which local charity should receive a financial gift from their trading (albeit as part of a wider csr programme).

But it marks the first time I'm aware of, a company changing the way it does csr because of what it's customers are telling it - in effect, it's co-producing it's csr with its customers, being increasingly led by our personal interests, whims, and fashions.

And is that a good thing? Well, it fits with classical marketing strategy of responding to/being led by customers, but if more and more companies start to follow this lead (as they did with the B1G1 model), then we start to risk some causes and issues 'losing out' because they're not as visible or popular as others, but are nonetheless equally important.

Csr plays a distinct role in the wider fabric of community and voluntary support, but supplements what we choose to do as individuals. If we as individuals start to direct the businesses we buy from as to the causes we want them to support, then we're likely to give less to those causes ourselves: after all, that cause or group will still be getting something from our purchase price, right? 

But it's unlikely that any private business's csr will ever equal what we collectively give individually, so this crowdsourced approach to csr may ultimately start to see more of us giving less to charity, and spending more as consumers... 

is 'responsible lending' starting to mean investing in private businesses more, and social enterprises less..?

Since what seems like forever, there has always been the provision of 'alternative finance' - people and communities coming together to support each other financially when either the banks said "no", or because they wanted better terms than mainstream lenders were offering them.

Over time, this has led to the creation of what's now named and recognised as 'alternative finance' - pioneered by early co-ops, community businesses, and charities through things like credit unions, the formation of the Charity Bank, and such like. And then attracting global interest through the rise and populism of 'micro finance'.

But this isn't a post about the history of this sector (although there are some good stories to tell - like what happens if Quakers set up a bank to offer a more ethical alternative in the 17th century, only to have it suffer 'mission drift': we know it as Barclays bank today. And what happens when all the studies and research starts to show that micro finance doesn't deliver on its promises to lift people of of poverty?).

Instead, this is about my wondering if the recent performance of alternative finance providers, as reported by the sector body, Responsible Finance, is showing that social enterprises are increasingly moving away from such ethical alternatives, and that we're seeing private businesses making better use of these lenders designed to step in when mainstream banks and lenders said 'no'. And in doing so, are we also starting to see an evidence base emerging that shows private businesses are better at creating social impact than social enterprises...?

As readers of previous posts like this may recall, I don't claim to use any statistically significant variance analyses - I try and take a simple layman's approach: looking at the data as it's been published, and sticking it into some simple charts.

To do this, I've drawn on 4 years of annual reports published by Responsible Finance, and also one of Social Enterprise UK's 'state of the sector' mapping reports too.

And to try and break the flow of this post, I've copied these charts below, with some summary observations further down:

Now, taking a 'layman's approach' - these charts seem to indicate some trends. Namely:

• social enterprises have been more volatile ('bust and boom') in their performance in comparison with private businesses ('slow and steady')
• the private sector offers better value for money in creating and sustaining jobs (but it's been argued elsewhere that this is because social enterprises tend to employ people with higher needs than a typical company would be willing to invest)
• responsible/alternative lenders don't seem very keen to lend to start-ups if they're a social enterprise, but are far more willing to do so if it's a private business

Now I mentioned having also looked at another data source - Social Enterprise UK's mapping of the sector. In 2017 this reported that nearly 1 in 4 of all social enterprises were actively seeking to take on a loan of some type (with 83% who applied to do so, receiving an investment = approximately 14,000 enterprises), and those that did were able to secure a median amount of £60,000. But against the comparable year from the responsible lenders, the average amount was £391,185, against 363 borrowers. Which suggests that most social enterprises are NOT going to alternative and social lenders to raise investment, and those that are, are far larger than the typical social enterprise is.

All of which seems to paint a picture of responsible/alternative finance being a good thing if you're a small private business looking to start up. And for these lenders themselves, private businesses would also seem to offer a more stable client base to build on in the future too. These private businesses would also be good to show to policy makers to boot, with their offering better apparent value in helping to create and protect jobs in the wider economy.

But there's lots of other data in these annual publications too, which suggest that there's other things going on around responsible/alternative finance too, not just this dichotomy in performance between social enterprise and private businesses who take loans: 

• the total number of borrowers has fallen by over 50% in the last 4 years 
• the average loan to a private business is up by nearly 90%; whilst to social enterprise borrowers it's only up by 5% over the same period

All of which makes me wonder if alternative finance has gotten too good at being 'alternative' - in evidencing to the wider marketplace of mainstream lenders and high street banks, that those enterprises and people who they previously said "no" to, can now be said "yes" to?

But this is a layman's take on annual reports published by industry bodies. As with my previous posts like this, my hope is that rather than start a revolution and change the system completely, is will instead provoke some further reflections and conversations, and help contribute to making sure that the support and services we offer to businesses (be they private or social), can remain most relevant and current in meeting their changing needs, and by association, the people they employ and the communities they serve.

All I've done here is what I don't see happening that often amongst policy makers and sector bodies - looking at trends over time, and starting to cross-reference other data sources to try and better understand the picture.

if you want support for your startup, you'll likely need to ignore your ethics...

I find myself in an unusual conundrum as an enterprise advisor who also has a pretty explicit set of values and ethics in how I approach the way I work:

Over the last few years, government has consistently reduced the amount of resource and support available to people who want to start up different types of businesses as a route to employment, generating jobs, changing the world in new ways, and such like. This has meant that the support that so many entrepreneurs of all types need and value is increasingly scarce.

At the same time, high street banks and financial services bodies seem to be moving into this business support space through creating startup grant funds, developing (free) incubators and workspace, and sponsoring national thematic enterprise support initiatives.

All seems pretty straightforward? And economists would probably point to this as an example of how market forces are creating responses that people and enterprises need, without the need for state intervention.

But here's the rub - a recent survey of the 'ethical-ness' of high street banks seems to suggest that those who are scored as 'most unethical' are the ones doing the most around these startup and social enterprise support initiatives. A case of 'buying your way out of a guilty conscience'? (http://www.thegoodshoppingguide.com/ethical-banks-and-building-societies)

And for the entrepreneurs accessing this support - some won't care where the money's coming from, but I see that people increasingly are interested in how that money has come to be on the basis of choices about where they choose to invest their own savings, suppliers they choose to procure from, and the places they try and recruit their staff from.

Market forces are all well and good, but remember that the market isn't a person - it doesn't have ethics or values like you or I. And that likely means that entrepreneurs' difficult choices will only be added to in the future when they start to weigh up the ethics of accepting the support that they know that their enterprise needs, but comes at a cost of having been raised from investing and trading in practices that they'd otherwise be very uncomfortable with...

does anyone really care how far we're open and transparent in how we do business?

In recent news, there's been a furore of activity over leaked papers about tax havens and money laundering by an international finance firm on behalf of the rich and famous, (allegedly). 

This comes on the back of various campaigns and calls for big business to be more responsible in paying tax and treating employees and people in their supply chain with dignity and respect.

And all of this comes on the back of previous movements around fairtrade, environmental impact, sustainability, and such like.

You would think that all of the media coverage of these themes means that as consumers we've a keen interest in how responsible the businesses we spend our money with are acting, and calling them to ever greater account through demanding that they're more open in how they work.

And yet, anecdotally despite petitions and campaigns, most people I know still shop with the likes of Amazon, buy coffee from Starbucks, and similar... so my question is that while we're outraged when we hear of such unethical corporate behaviour, if it doesn't change our own personal behaviours, actions, and shopping choices, do we really care that much?

Because if we don't, then why should firms strive to be more open and transparent in how they do business?

Many of the businesses I support are social and charitable enterprises, and there's been various encouragements to them over the years to show such openness through reporting on their social impact. And yet researches and surveys show that increasingly, when they do, it's making less of a difference to their customers in influencing their purchasing from them.

For myself - as the only freelance consultant globally (to my knowledge) to openly publish an impact report on myself with openness about my supply chain and other business activities, I know that doing so has never made any difference to my clients and customers final decisions about engaging and commissioning me (I know this, because I ask them!).

So with all the calls for more openness and transparency, I'd like to start another call - this time to start a conversation about what we as consumers really would like those businesses and firms to be open and transparent about, and if they start to, if we'll actually read and act on them...

great co-op myths of our time (or why we need more competition and less collaboration...)

Co-ops: they’re great, right? Everybody seems to love them, and they’re often held up as models of enterprise that can fulfil some of the most challenging aspects of our societies: creating sustainable employment, empowering the disenfranchised, addressing poverty, ...

But sadly, there are many myths and mistruths perpetuated about them through ignorance, which are probably part of the reason why co-op enterprises have never really ‘taken off’ in this country like they have in others, and are often treated with trepidation by the wider business community.

There’s plenty of material already out there (if you only look or ask for it) that helps to dispel some of these myths that relate to decision-making needing to involve everyone, all employees needing to be paid the same wage, etc, but I wanted to pick up on one that seems to be creeping in to not just rumours about co-ops, but also has implications for the wider economy too: competition.

Co-ops are defined by a set of universal values and principles, which include ‘co-operation amongst co-operatives’: the sense that the sector grows stronger by actively supporting each itself and each other. But this isn’t the same as not competing with each other as some seem to think (based on a few recent twitter conversations...)

Competition, if open and honest, between co-ops is actually quite important and vital: it forces them to constantly question assumptions about how things should be, what customers want, and if there might be a more effective way of achieving the end goals. That doesn’t mean co-ops have to undercut or metaphorically backstab each other, but as part of co-operating with each other, it should mean that there’s a healthy and open discussion about what each might be able to do that’s different to the others, and which will ultimately also mean more choice and benefit for customers and the wider community and society.

Competition stops us stagnating and being overtaken, and surely better to be in ‘healthy competition’ with people who share our underlying values, than a faceless corporation whose only interest is in making as much money out of people as possible?

And this sense of competition being something we should encourage amongst ourselves shouldn’t be limited to just co-ops - collaboration is being increasingly encouraged between businesses within all sectors and industries, so as with so much else, the co-op movement would seem to have some useful learning for other these other marketplaces and enterprises to draw upon and be inspired by.

 

Competition – it shouldn’t be a dirty word for co-ops, but rather one which should be encouraged and celebrated as a means to make sure we keep upping our game so we can have ever greater impacts on our communities and the wider world.

why social accounting encourages us to delude ourselves...

I've been thinking a lot about approaches and issues relating to social accounting/impact reporting lately – perhaps because it’s about that time of year when I publish my own latest annual report! (and to my knowledge, am still the only freelance consultant on the planet to do so...)

A regional enterprise support agency asked me in conversation recently about one of the measures I report on in my framework: the percentage of my turnover that I directly reinvest in my own CPD – they wondered why I'd measure that, rather than simply keep a log of all my CPD activity (which I also do!). And I think my answer surprised them: it’s so I know how well I'm actually doing in respect of CPD - keeping a log of activity only helps me understand what works for me, it doesn’t allow me to compare how I'm structuring what I do in relation to my counterparts – and in regard to CPD, there are benchmarks from bodies such as the CIPD who I can look at to consider if I’m investing more/less than the market norm.

Without being able to compare the findings of our social impact reports, how confident can we be in what we think they tell us about ourselves? I can create measures and standards that will generate what seem to be impressive figures and statistics, but they're only really impressive if I can compare them against other peoples'...

And that’s where most of the approaches to reporting social value/impact/accounting come unstuck – while there may be standardisations of overarching methodologies, the way they're enacted can vary incredibly between organisations who adopt them: I know of one instance where 2 homeless charities compared their impact by both using Social Return on Investment (SROI) – one seemed to be clearly outpacing the other in terms of the final calculated financial ratio, but in comparing their ‘workings out’ it became clear that this was because they'd not been consistent, with one counting far more stakeholders and outcomes than the other had...

Unless we use measures in our social impact reporting that have a consistent applied methodology and can generate data which we can directly compare against others' in the confidence that they've measured it in exactly the same way – any social impact report we create falls short of its true potential in helping us to decide how well we really are doing in the world beyond the inside of our own heads, and as such lacks credibility with others (such as commissioners, investors, etc...)

Why social impact reporting tools and social accounting have all been getting in wrong (until now...)

So – that's quite a grand and likely provocative sweeping statement, and given that I've been involved in impact reporting and social accounting (including the development of tool-kits for 'doing it' ) for over a decade, might be seen to some as a contradiction to what I've always argued as being the benefit of doing it?

For a while now, I've noticed a growing interest and 'appetite' amongst social enterprises and other organisations I've worked with and supported to do some form of impact evaluation – they want to better 'tell their story' and understand the what/where/when/why and who they make a difference to. But as the same time, there's also been a noticeable lack of people actually doing it...

And I'm beginning to wonder if the reason for this might be because all the tool-kits and models for impact reporting that have been developed to date have largely an internal focus on the organisation – either based on their 'type' (co-operative, social firm, …) or thematic trading activity. And this includes SROI – after all, it asks stakeholders about how they feel the organisation has impacted upon them: another internal focus.

And that's fine, but in a wider context of increasing competition for contracts and customers, doesn't easily translate into being able to better offer competitive advantage for the time and cost usually entailed in using them (especially for smaller enterprises).

And that's why I'm quite taken with the latest kid on the block: “LIM” (Local Impact Assessment). It’s taken its starting point as being those broad issues and themes that are most commonly of interest to commissioning bodies when they seek to identify 'added value' when awarding contracts (and explains why measuring these issues are also useful in informing internal management decisions); it's also designed to be able to be easily completed in an afternoon (or morning) and rather than generate a text-heavy report, it produces an attractive 'infographic' (great for marketing purposes).

Given my background in this field, I was also encouraged by how keen the developers of this tool where to make sure they'd 'got it right' when they asked if I'd have a good 'poke around' and see if there were any parts of it that might be enhanced to create even more benefit to the user.

And by way of thanks, they agreed that if anyone wants to 'buy in' to using it, then they'll offer them a discount on the usual price of up to £100 if they mention my name!!

So – impact reporting still comes in lots of flavours and styles; if you're doing it, it’s important to make sure you know what you're hoping to get out of it and what you're able to commit in terms of time, before you start to choose which standard or tool-kit to adopt.

LIM seems to be filling a gap in what's available and seems ideally suited to those perhaps smaller enterprises that want to do this type of review/evaluation but would otherwise struggle to justify the time and cost of doing so.

So what are you waiting for…? - follow this link to find out more!

doing a Del Boy...

in the run up to christmas last year, I found myself running a market stall at a craft market, peddling felted soaps, lace, scarves and such like (long story for another time).

Needless to say, it was very different to how I usually work - not only because it was retail, rather than 'business to business', but also because it meant me standing outside all day in -3C.
BUT it was actually a really good experince: trading in an unfamiliar context with a different group of customers meant a lot of thinking and learning on my feet; it also forced me to quickly form loose alliances with other neighbouring traders. All of which not only meant I took sales that were very respectable, but also had the opportunity to reflect on how I do business from a completely diiferent perspective.

So - I'd encourage you all to try the same from time to time. Spend a day doing business in a way that's completely alien to your usual - get out your suitcase fully of (dodgy?) gear, pull on the fake fur trim coat and fire up the 3-wheeler...

What Shakespeare can teach us about social enterprise – better ‘to be’ or simply ‘to do’?

Many charities and local authorities are now running services and activities under the banner of ‘social enterprise’ to contribute to their sustainability (both as services and organisations).

This perhaps helps to explain why there’s such confusion about what social enterprise is: some organisations presenting their structure and form as the basis for their identity, while others present their actions as their basis.

But... if it means that communities are benefiting through these ‘branded’ trading activities by groups not structured as social enterprises, then how far should we feel ‘protective’ over our identity? After all, there’s a compelling and logical argument along the lines of “as long as they job’s getting done and supporting people is at the focus of what we do, what does it matter how the organisation is structured...” however, taken to its conclusion this argument surely takes us down the path of the end justifying the means (something the Prince of Demark wrestled with famously in Hamlet).

Muhammad Yunus has waded into this historical debate with his refreshed definition of a ‘social business’ (broadly speaking - that as long as you’re primarily benefitting people in need then you ‘tick the box’). But there’s surely a risk with such loose definitions that many privately owned businesses will start to add to their ‘green-wash’ with ‘social-wash’, and that charities will further muddy the waters by having an ongoing reliance on grants and subsidies while presenting what they do as ‘social enterprise’.

Social enterprise is surely about being a sustainable business that’s rooted in the open marketplace and which exists to principally benefit those in need; it shouldn’t matter who’s in its employ or on its board – these things are fixed and immutable. Otherwise, as officers change, markets, customers, and society become confused by different peoples’ values changing the focus and purpose of what that organisation does and how it does it.

But confusion aside, that social enterprise has challenged and inspired such a growing change in common business practices amongst private businesses and charities is surely an impressive achievement and something we can take pride in?

Where next for social enterprise in the 'Big Society'?

There’s increasing interest from politicians and investors for social enterprises to enter ‘non-traditional’ market places (apparently there’s a belief that social enterprises don’t usually foray out of construction, catering or childcare into markets like telecoms, IT, financial services, etc etc...), especially into industries where private businesses have failed.

So – leaving aside the argument that if other businesses fail in these markets, where is the logic in us entering them?, this may seem fair enough, but ask any actual trading business about their entering new marketplaces and they’ve very hesitant. This is because this strategy for business growth is proven to be the most risky, and most likely to fail.

Therefore we need an incentive – if the state wants us to take such high risks, then they should recognise the cost to us for delivering their agenda (assuming that we decide it’s actually a good idea to enter new marketplaces). This doesn’t and shouldn’t be through grants, but maybe through tax and investment reliefs, interest free loans, and so on – possibly the need that the big society bank that’s being created could meet?

But if we do diversify and enter these ‘non-traditional’ market places, ultimately it should be because we see that there’s business sense in doing so – otherwise we change into charities or subsidiaries of the state and loose our distinctiveness.