Category: Entrepreneurial Wellness

Since I was raised in a family with a parent who had a lifelong (mental health) disability that was transmitted through several generations, including mine, I have volunteered as a speaker and advocate in the past for people with disabilities (PWD).

In my two previously published ebooks (“Getting Past It” and “Keep Going”), I lauded the efforts of clients and contacts to find space in our workplaces and communities and to demonstrate their resilience. PWD of all kinds no longer exist in the corporate or business world solely as “token hires”: we are holding our own.

Enter former successful NYSE trader (recruited by Merrill Lynch well before the stockmarket crash in 2008) and an Ivy League MBA graduate, Canadian Rich Donovan. Donovan has focused his career on the disability market. He is a financial risk analyst with difference: He has a vision of converting the “cause” of today’s world of disability into a corporate and financial market.

And another factor of his difference? He happens to have Cerebral Palsy.

He hasn’t let it slow him down.

In his 2018 book, Unleash Different: Achieving  Business Success Through Disability (Toronto: ECW Press), Donovan contends that the charitable sector of fundraising for people with many kinds of disabilities (and usually adopting a particular hero as spokesperson or leader) is an age-old model that provides no economic identity and future for PWD.

He says that this sector has sold governments and corporations a “community mentality that damages the disability market, people with disabilities and shareholder value.” Although this has “not” been “intentional,” it certainly is “limited and problematic.”

Charitable organizations for PWD remain based in a regulatory mindset around disability, of compliance that is rooted in affirmative action and hiring quotas, and that brackets off the economic/investment market. Valuing the truths and justice that have begun to arise from the “Me Too” movement for women’s rights and how they intersect and dovetail with the rights of PWD, Donovan never disputes the important gains in the past of affirmative action (e.g. hiring quotas).

But he does dispute that the model has an identifiable future, alone, for PWD. While acknowledging the truths of the charitable sector, he insists we must move beyond that model. Hiring practices, while important, don’t drive shareholder value. Shareholders will invest in disability-based or friendly companies, when they see them as competitive and profitable.

As Donovan writes in his book, the social goals of investing in disability are clear, but the investment goals have not been. A few short years ago, he performed months of independent, risk-based, mathematical analysis and found a 2.82% steady increase in ROI over the first five years for the disability market. Donovan made the iconic step of taking his company, “Return on Disability” (RODI) to trade on the floor the NYSE on September 11, 2014. (See https://www.rod-group.com/ ).

In everyday terms, Donovan argues that many companies think they’re doing well by investing $3M+ on developing a disability policy that collects dust on a shelf, while it does nothing to increase the company’s profit or revenue. This he terms the “charity fallacy.”

As he writes on his website, through a “proprietary and proven process” of translating “disability success factors into specific actions that create sustainable value,” Donovan gives “corporate and government clients insights and tools to frame disability as a global emerging market.”

Investors increasingly recognize that 1.3 Billion people in the world identify with disability— the largest emerging market in the world, and one larger than either China or India.

He notes that when you “include friends and family, the disability market touches 53% of all consumers.”

Simply said, “Unless the consumer and investor believe something and act on it, the conversation will never lead to action” and action is the vehicle of change: The RODI works to “leverage” company practices “from the investors down, while at the same time getting companies to listen to and meet consumer demand by improving the ways they address disability.”

From there, consumers can be engaged to pressure companies toward greater inclusivity, whereby sales increase on soda pop cans that are easier-to-open and when grocery store signs use icons that are easier to comprehend.

While Canada lags behind the US in taking this market-driven approach to disability, companies here are realizing that a traditional, compliance focus on the disability market has cost the major five Canadian banks more than $250M, since 1989. Put simply, by 2017, three out of five of Canadian banks have achieved no appreciable financial gain for PWD. But, as online data shows, TD, RBC and Scotiabank have begun to make strides (see https://senseability.ca/).

America’s greatest successes in this arena have been Pepsi and Disney, who focus to great extents on serving PWD by making their products or services disability friendly and simultaneously raising the value of their stocks.

Donovan is not a lone wolf. He is quick to say that he cannot alone do the work of making disability a profitable sector, even with his wife,  marketer Jenn Donovan, and other specialists on board: The sector is “too big,” he says.

One of Donovan’s colleagues, former Ontario franchise owner of Tim Horton’s, Mark Wafer, who was featured alongside Donovan in the CBC’s Ioanna Roumeliotis’ stories on disability inclusion (2014, 2016), has founded Canada’s “only national, bilingual business network dedicated to helping private and public sector organizations become more accessible to and inclusive of PWD.” You can view the site and companies engaging in those efforts at https://senseability.ca/

Donovan is sought after by businesses and governments for advice when acting on the disability market. What he is doing for PWD, he stresses, may seem mercenary and earn the ire of the charitable sector. But RODI’s principles can be applied to any segment of difference (gender, race, class, age, regionalism, differing abilities, etc.). And while Donovan’s focus started primarily on the US and Canada, his insights and acumen apply across the globe.

In October 2016, he was named one of the “Top 50 Most Influential People with Disabilities in the world” by UK-based Powerful Media and Shaw Trust.

He continues to assert that we need “less emotional assertion” around PWD and “more evidence-based discussion.”

While Donovan’s influence is appreciable over large corporations, entrepreneurs with disabilities and local Canadian markets—including small business—can join in the work of making PWD an economically viable market with broad capacity for social growth and change.

And now it’s your turn. Do you see the value and progress in making businesses both inclusive to PWD and fiscally profitable? Please weigh in on my “contact” page. I’d be delighted to extend this discussion.

During the past busy year, filled with training, teaching and writing, I haven’t often managed to tune in to hear Canadian ad-man, Terry O’Reilly, on his great show, “Under the Influence.” Thankfully, through the great podcasts that he produces for the award-winning (CBC) radio show, one can always catch up later. 

It’s been my intention to do so for some weeks. And then last Sunday, my friend Martha Fergusson observed that Terry’s “Bookmarks 2019” episode was especially “wonderful.” It is his annual show that collects the “outtakes” and extras that didn’t fit into earlier episodes of the season—not because they were weak or had errors, but because they came from books and sources that simply didn’t fit the topics of earlier shows.

And was Martha right!

When I listened to the episode today, I realized why O’Reilly is my kind of marketer. He celebrates reading by saying that “books are barbells for the mind. The best kind of books on marketing are the ones that aren’t books about marketing. Marketing is the study of what makes us tick.” . . . . Such books are about “authors sharing insights about the human condition.”

Marketing, entrepreneurship, writing and the Arts can’t get any better than that.

“Bookmarks 2019” spans a gamut of O’Reilly (and his team’s) reading, all of which vivifies the human condition.  He lists a catalog on unconventional book clubs from around the world that get people reading and meeting; he describes the surprisingly tense core casting of the film version of To Kill a Mockingbird that made its success; we hear from a biography of Beatles’ producer George Martin that only a chance moment of conversation caused him to produce “The Fab Four,” against the odds; and we watch a clip of the “Mary Tyler Moore Show,” directed by the gutsy Joan Darling on the taboo topic of morbidity (“Chuckles [the Clown] Bites the Dust”)—now immortalized as a classic of television.

Citing Dave Trott’s book, Predatory Thinking, O’Reilly observes that in marketing and other creative activity, we tend to make decisions based on our limited experience and knowledge which shut down imagination. He notes that “in business it’s often seen as a sign of strength to have an immediate opinion on everything. But the problem with that is that it shuts down exploration. We all have blindspots” that limit our capacity to see creatively. “Quick opinions too easily slam the door on potential.”

He says: “It can be much more powerful sometimes to say ‘I don’t know.’ ” As the old adage has it, “We don’t know what we don’t know” (an expression recapitulated in the theme song of the community, “Happy Place,” of another classic sit-com,“Corner Gas,” as “I don’t know the same things you don’t know”).

O’Reilly insists that “ ‘I don’t know’ opens a door.” That door can trigger imagination.

“Imagination is always as far as you can possibly go, +1.” And “that +1 can change the world.”

He concludes that “when judging creativity, you have to keep your antennae fully tuned for the smallest indication of massive potential.”

There is risk involved in engaging imagination, but “risks become calculated risks when experienced hands are on the steering wheel.” And by reading and reading even more, the application of what we read spawns precisely that experience.

So whether you read on the beach or in your office this summer, consider that in the crucibles of our creative work, we need to imagine options “as far as we can possibly go, +1.”

Check out Terry’s “Bookmarks 2019” episode, for yourself:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/this-tv-episode-is-considered-the-greatest-of-all-time-1.5155531

And now it’s your turn: What does it mean for you to do work that goes “as far as you can possibly go, + 1?”   Please write in below, or on my “contact” page.  I’d be delighted to hear from you.

I wrote in my mid-May newsletter how sometimes old-fashioned writing techniques can deepen our thinking (e.g. especially when we plot, plan and draft fiction). But I’ve also read with interest the other end of that scale, how copywriters (communications and marketing writers) can benefit from and also defend themselves from the developments of Artificial Intelligence (AI)—most obviously when it threatens to overtake our livelihoods.

For years now, technology gurus and computer science specialists (and not only conspiracy theorists) have warned of a feared “intelligence explosion,” since progress from human level AI to superhuman ability now can occur rapidly. Many readers will know that “OpenAI,” a company backed by Elon Musk, can mimic the way that humans write so well that it can be impossible to tell whether a news item is written by a computer or by a human writer. Due to the ethical problems that ensue from this, Musk and others have not released some of the company’s most sophisticated developments.

If a computer can write as well as we can,

where does that leave professional copywriters?

When I teach students at Saskatoon’s Praxis School of Entrepreneurship conversational, open-ended copywriting, I deliberately use it to replace the aggressive, direct marketing style of copy that once dominated the business writing world. Conversational copywriting does not assume that the reader is passive and easily manipulated into a “hard sell,” as direct response copywriting does. But a conversational method also resists easy replication by AI.

Conversational copywriting adapts many tools to its approach. Here are a few:
(1) It asks open-ended questions that hook readers to participate in the “discussion,” whether in a headline or an opening paragraph (or both)

(2) It uses at appropriate times one or more of our five senses to persuade the reader to read and follow the discussion (e.g. onomatopoeic words, like “sizzling steak,” that sound similar to their meaning will convince the reader to follow more than dull, unfigurative, non-sensory ones)

(3) Writers using a friendly, conversational style will use contractions (“Won’t you agree?”), some sentence fragments (“Want to join us?”) that are not possible by formulaic/templated copy, thereby allowing the writer’s personality to shine through

(4) Using stock photos or short videos (at no or low cost to the writer) can engage the reader even more personally and powerfully than conversational language and can definitely be used to intensify its force

(5) Good, conversational writing includes a call-to-action (CTA) that encourages the reader to respond or comment, once they have read it.

Computer scientists tell us that AI cannot easily master writing that requires our own initiative (e.g. to develop an original and specific theme or topic that followers will read and respond to), judgment (e.g. such as the ethics of various approaches to copywriting and the readers those approaches appeal to) and perspective (our informed opinions, interests or biases).

Specifically due to the writer’s initiative, judgment and perspective, the open-ended capacity of blogging is more complex and harder to mimic or reproduce than, say, the more formulaic structure of a media release (or similarly, case studies, white papers or other template-patterned copy).

When I think of AI, I can’t help but remember how it has been parodied over the years by comedians like Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, Michael J. Fox and others. That’s relevant because computer scientists tell us that our humanity, imperfections and conversational capacities (all hallmarks of comedy, in this case) are the most resistant to AI.

Showing our humanness in tone, content and style means that we’ll stay competitive longer. Consider, for instance, my colleague Daphne Gray-Grant who blogged this week (post #684) on how saying “no” to others’ requests can make yourself a better writer. In that post, she discusses the risk of being a “people pleaser” or what Bernard Brandchaft called “pathological accommodators” (agreeing to do much or all that others ask of you) can threaten one’s writing process and output, not to mention one’s health and well-being. Gray-Grant’s initiative, judgment and perspective have shaped every word in her posting; she needn’t watch nervously over her shoulder for the latest capabilities of AI.

So to my clients and students who do glance nervously around themselves in the world of AI, I suggest this: Use everyday, conversational language. Involve 

all of your senses. Write about your abilities and dis/differing abilities and whatever imperfections and vulnerabilities that shape what and how you think. Developing your own, original voice through these capacities will be far more persuasive than AI.

No one wants to tempt fate. And I certainly recommend reading about and using technology well and responsibly—no luddite arguments, here. But at least some computer scientists suggest that programming non-human superintelligence with the kinds of complex human values and emotions required by professional writing will be a technical feat not easily met—now or tomorrow.

And now it’s your turn: How do you engage or address the developments of AI for your creative work? Please share your responses; I’d be delighted to extend this conversation.

Like many small business owners in SK, I appreciate having the opportunity to work from home. For nearly 10 years, I have benefited from writing and editing online and off, from a home office that was conveniently located close to downtown Saskatoon and its amenities.

But I recently relocated to avoid extremely noisy, light reducing building renovations in the highrise complex that I had called “home” for 10 years.

This week’s blog posting addresses the politically charged topic of “renoviction”— a disturbing trend in urban rental housing (chronicled by the CBC and other sources) where lower, or lower middle class, renters are forced to vacate rental property, by a landlord’s intrusive renovations. When tenants leave, they incur costly moving and relocating expenses, and forgo the reasonable cost of rent that had come with their original, long-term leases. Depending on the city where you reside, other reasonably priced, rental housing can be hard, if not impossible, to find.

Online articles from the CBC tell us that factors that keep vacancy rates low are rising interest rates, tougher rules to qualify for mortgages, housing prices that have cooled but are still high–all of which keep prospects from buying houses or condos. These people, plus new immigrants, students and low income seniors keep demand on the rental market steady, if not high. Although Saskatoon currently has high rental vacancy rates (14% in 2018), that has not always been the case. And the above factors (interest rates, mortgage rules, the costly housing market) have intensified in the downtown core and in the upscale new neighbourhoods of Saskatoon.

If tenants facing “renoviction” stay put (while significant, structural changes are being made to their dwellings), often little or no rental discount or incentive is provided for them. Meantime, their lives are disrupted by noise and other diminishing factors. Following potentially months or years of such disruptions, property management companies, often driven by greedy owners, drive up the cost of rent by $200 or $300+, per month, pushing many, lower income tenants to the edge of bankruptcy.

There are important exceptions, to be sure: Some local owners and landlords work hard to maintain the quality of the properties they own or manage and strive to treat their tenants fairly. These landlords live in our city and take their responsibilities to the community seriously.

But “renovictions” have been an acute problem in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, where credit counsellors have warned of a general increase and (notably since 2019 began) a recent surge of “renovictions” in the rental market. The problem has swept across Canada, with implications also for smaller centres with higher vacancy rates, like Saskatoon. Some of the problematic rental properties are managed long distance by owners and landlords who have no office or residence in our city or our province.

Desperate tenants in Vancouver and Toronto sometimes go to “payday” lenders with astronomical interest rates, to get installment loans to pay for such spikes in rent. Credit counsellors warn that such debt can be very difficult to resolve.

The plan to renovate buildings is a lawful excuse to evict, according to Canadian landlord-tenant law. In Ontario, where rental practices have been best publicized, landlords must demonstrate that significant renovations are being done and they must allow evicted tenants back into their buildings after the renovations, and at the same rate of rent, until a rental increase can be lawfully scheduled. This has not been my experience in Saskatoon.

But one tenants’ advocate in Toronto (and such advocacy groups are too few on the Prairies) has argued that once evicted, many renters are not financially able to move back in. CBC online tells us that landlords can schedule rent increases for a new lease at whatever the market demands. Furthermore, the landlord has no obligation to say how long the eviction will last, threatening the renters’ financial and personal planning and security. The rise in rent may not necessarily reflect tangible improvements to the ostensibly upgraded property.

If the newly renovated building becomes ready when the tenant has already started a new lease elsewhere, few such tenants can afford pay for two leases.
In both large and small cities in Canada, wages of tenants are not rising to reflect the increasing cost of the rental market, so that some tenants must give up jobs and flee the cities which earlier sustained their livelihoods.

“Renoviction” can force tenants to give up optimally located careers, relationships with friends, family and local resources (e.g. small businesses, not-for-profit organizations).

Paul Kolinski, a musician in Toronto’s College-Dovercourt neighbourhood for 10 years, told the CBC that while he was fighting “renoviction” in his building, he was expecting to “start over,” somewhere else. He wondered how far west he’d have to move, speculating “Hamilton,” or even “Winnipeg?”

But anecdotal evidence among friends and family indicates that tenants in Hamilton, Waterloo, Winnipeg, and smaller centres like Saskatoon are not immune to the crisis of “renoviction.”

However, while the condominium and housing market crises of the last 30 years have been widely discussed, “renovictions” in the Prairie rental market have not yet been widely discussed.

The City of Saskatoon continues to license apartment complexes (such as the one where I was based for 10 years) and to charge entrepreneurs for those licenses, when the properties involved may be under the siege of ”renoviction.” That does not help to support the small, home-based businesses that are the lifeblood of our local economy. (The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses tell us that 75% of most of our provinces’ economies are fueled by small businesses, many of which start as home-based ventures.)

The CBC reports that monthly rents in Canada rose by 6% in January, 2019, alone. Houses that tenants could once have rented as an alternative to high or low rise buildings, have often been converted to Airbnb (short-term) rentals, removing another option from the table.

While we have had a healthy vacancy rate of 14% in Saskatoon (2018; a supposed “renter’s market”) and the average rent increase expected in 2019 will be only 2%, reasonably priced and quality rental property can be hard to find, especially when located close to the city’s services and amenities.

Meantime, the vacancy rate for rental property in hubs like Toronto in 2017 was only 1.1% (the lowest in 16 years). And yet the population base of central Canada has historically allowed them to develop stronger advocacy groups in all sectors, including the housing market. Those groups are calling for government intervention, to prevent “renoviction” from emptying out Canada’s urban landscape.

Governments are slow to respond in Central Canada and even slower out West. But respond they must, since vulnerable seniors, students and renters with steep rent increases will be lobbying and voting for rent controls and more affordably priced housing.

Saskatoon might consider itself a “kinder, gentler” urban centre, a “university town” that is reputed to be kind to its students, seniors and new Canadians. But in or near the downtown and in new neighbourhoods currently under development, the pressure of “renoviction” is real. Overworked, stressed, managerial staff on-the-ground are left to cope with angry, complaint-ridden tenants, while distant wealthy property owners benefit.

And this is not aided by the significantly fewer number of advocates/advocacy organizations for lower/lower middle class and home-based business owners. For instance, Saskatoon’s “Rentalsman Office” (Office of Residential Tenancies) says nothing about “renoviction” on its website or online materials. And to the best of my knowledge, no other organization publishes policies for public support, on this issue.

While I found an alternative housing option with room for a home office, operated by a local property management company that has its roots in Saskatchewan, I don’t delude myself that the matter is resolved. Saskatoon may be touted as one of the cheaper Canadian cities to rent a condo, some of the apartment stream is another story. “Renoviction” is here, too. And I’m only too aware that side-stepping the city’s residential tenancy court, in the effort to avoid disruption to life, career and privacy, does nothing to curb the broader problem we face.

Change to government policy is needed and it’s needed now.

And now it’s your turn: Do you rent your home or run a rented, home-based business? Have you found that policies of “renoviction” undermine your life and work? Please write in; I’d be pleased to widen this discussion.