Australians celebrate the achievements of others. They are proud of individuals who are committed, hard-working and succeed in their chosen field.  They resent being depicted as overall lazy and apathetic, an image they believe is put forward all too often. They recognise that Jackman has achieved much and reached the pinnacle of his field. He is a renowned international actor with a string of popular roles behind him. He’s very good at what he does and has become famous through his craft, unlike the multitudes we feel have become famous despite lacking talent.

Australian men also respect his versatility. He is able to extend himself, experiment with his skills and play very diverse roles. While they may not have enjoyed each and every one of these, they respect him for doing so. They like hearing of people reinventing themselves and turning their passion or interest into practice.

More importantly, it appears to Australian men that Jackman remains down-to-earth and unaffected by his fame. He appears free of the trappings and ego all too often associated with success. When famous people begin to believe in their own hype and act in a diva like manner their behaviour is regarded as distinctly unAustralian (that’s when the tall poppy syndrome comes into play, bringing those individuals down a notch or two).

Having humble beginnings or overcoming adversity are qualities Australian men admire. Succeeding despite difficult and challenging barriers and displaying resilience are common to many of their icons. Similarly they admire a career path marked by failure, persistence and a “never give up” attitude.

They also respect that Jackman is educated with a university degree. For all of their much-publicised larrikin sprit Australian men want to be recognised for their smarts. When they speak of Adam Hill, for example, it’s his intelligent humour they speak of.

Jackman is also scandal free. There is no sleaze associated with him. He is regarded as believable, genuine and trustworthy. They assume that he will not disappoint public expectations. There have been so many disappointments – think Lance Armstrong – that trust is a rare commodity, yet Jackman naturally draws it from the public.

He is not a publicity hound and maintains his private life with decorum.

There are two other qualities that set Jackman apart.

The first is his devotion as a husband. He is deeply committed to his wife despite the endless opportunities his good looks and star-status are assumed to accord him. Jackman scores bonus points for being unafraid to share his feeling for his wife in public. “The last award he won, he got up in front of the entire world and just basically lavished his wife with praise and love and admiration,” is how one man expressed it, “And I mean that’s pretty secure.”

The second quality is that Jackman appears to be a genuinely nice guy. The measure being that if you were to run into him somewhere he would happily stop for a chat. “You just expect him to be one of the nicest guys you’ve ever met I reckon.  I can’t imagine him saying a bad word about anyone,” is how one man put it.

There is only avenue left for Jackman if he wished for even greater accolades. He could become synonymous with his generosity or charity work, as Glenn McGrath is. Better still he could bow out of acting and become a professional athlete and win gold at the next Olympics.

The icons we choose to admire say much about our own character and aspirations. Brands seeking spokespeople should look for as many of these qualities as possible. Excelling in a particular field is simply not enough.  It is gratifying that, in the case of Australian men, among the qualities they seek a priority is being nice.

Being perpetually accessible is exhausting. It means we are never quite able to switch off. With our mobile devises in constant proximity, and a proliferation of media at home, seldom do we have any extended periods of silence or being lost in the moment.

The days of leaving work behind once we have left the office are long gone. There was a time when work issues did not invade our lives until the following morning, or on a Monday morning after some time out. The expectation and societal norm is that emails and messages will follow us throughout the evenings and weekends. And our culture of immediacy means these do not remain unread or responded to until the dawning of a new day, but are dealt with then and there.

The time we devote to being alone or with family and friends is constantly interrupted. It is not uncommon to see people speaking and texting others rather than singularly focussing on their live and present dining companions opposite them.

Opportunities to not be connected and contactable are rare and liberating experiences when they occur. These are times that are truly our own. We are free to lose ourselves in our thoughts, a book or our companions. They are about being, rather than doing.

There are a plethora of articles, blog posts and even books by writers describing their own and their family’s experiences of intentionally switching off all electronics for a specified period of time. Commonly they describe entering the experiment with much trepidation and some withdrawal symptoms. These however soon gave way to a new way of being, one marked by connectedness, imagination and calm.

Even young people, the most social media addicted of all in our society speak of this desire. This is nicely manifested in hearing them describe the Corona Extra beer advertising campaign called From a Place You’ Rather Be, which highly appeals. Each and every scene is well away from the city in a picturesque location, with good friends and not a mobile phone in sight.

In one group several young Catholics spoke of giving up Facebook for lent. And while they embarked on this commitment with a sense of burden and loss they emerged much lighter, speaking of the experience as having given them a new perspective. Not enough to keep them switched off, but sufficient to make them long for a similar experience in the future.

The appeal of silent carriages on trains is another manifestation, being spared from other’s conversations and phone beeps, and our own, for the duration of the journey. It seems that travelling in silence is a novel idea.

There has been talk in recent months of airlines enabling internet connections on long haul flights. Speak to business people about the idea and they are far from enthused. What is meant to be an enabling service is soundly lamented. The hours spent on a plane (especially for those in the comfort of business or first class) offer respite. Currently they can read, sleep or watch a movie undisturbed and guilt free – for they are forced to switch off.

Increasingly Australians are making a conscious decision to escape, be it for a short period of time. The trend will continue as we seek dining experiences and holidays destinations where disconnection is the norm.

If you want to scare a young people (and plenty of older ones too) put the following scenario to them: “You’re mobile devise and PC will be taken away for one week. That means no email, text or Facebook. What do you think?” There’s a moment or two of stunned silence while they contemplate the idea before responding with impassioned negativity. They turn pale and their eyes fill with fear.

Not being connected to the world is highly discomforting. The mobile is not just an accessory that will be taken from them but a fifth limb that is being amputated. They feel lost without it.

The reasoning against my proposal is layered. The first volley of answers raises practical issues, like needing email and Facebook to organise their life.

Then there’s the need to keep up. Ignoring their email accounts for a few days and the inbox is overflowing. And people expect to be answered and within a very short space of time. As for Facebook, just contemplate how much they will have to catch up on. They will be left too far behind. They won’t be up to date with the gossip.

At its core living without their mobile leaves them feeling alone and abandoned. Being communicated with means they are not alone, that their circle-of-care or community is there. A young woman who lives on her own explained that sometimes when she is alone at home and the space feels rather empty she will send out the same text message to several people: “I’ll usually shoot it out to about four or five people hoping that one or two will get back to me. Every time you pick up your phone you look at it, you’re hoping that there’s a message, that someone’s thought of you.”

Another explained her panic when no messages came through for a period of time. “There were no messages that came through and I thought that was really weird. That was the feeling before I realised that there was a technical problem with my carrier. It was a void, it really was, I actually felt quite alone and I thought ‘no one’s out there, where is everyone, what’s happening.’ It was like almost 24 hours without anything coming through and it wasn’t good.”

When the phone beeps to indicate a text or the PC chimes in with a new email having arrived they light up. Someone wants me. When they post on Facebook they are looking out for responsive comments and likes.

That’s a key problem for brands playing in this area, by the way. One moment the recipient of the text is feeling popular and thought off and the next they are disappointed that it’s only some corporation flogging something.

There’s a partial antidote in the works. An emerging trend of switching off and feeling liberated for a while. But that’s a topic for another blog post.

With so much to dampen our mood public celebrations are important to Australians. They provide an opportunity to see the glass-half-full and showcase the common affection and patriotism that Australians feel towards their country. “Best country in the world” is still the sentiment.

And this attitude has only strengthened over the years. The more Australians travel and the more they are exposed personally or via the media to the serious troubles that beset much of the world, the more they feel fortunate for having been born or ended up in a country seemingly immune to such serious problems.

Australia Day is an opportunity to give voice to such feelings. It’s not something we get to do often. We don’t get teary when the national anthem is sung at sporting events and few of us overly express deference to the flag.

Rather we do it in our own way. We reappropriate our national symbols in a playful and less serious manner. We do not fly our flags from poles outside our homes, but rather display them on our hats, stubby holders, towels and face-painted cheeks.

We feel there is much to be thankful for and revel in the opportunity to do so by gathering with friends. And we sense the presence of others doing likewise. We feel a sense of unity and togetherness. We are saying out loud that we are mostly a very harmonious society that gets along overwhelmingly well.

Brands are most welcome to play a role. By developing Australia Day campaigns they are demonstrating that they are part of our society. McDonald’s relabelling some of their restaurants as “Mackers” is a good example, honestly reflecting our informal manner. Sam Kekovich’s campaigns on behalf of Australian lamb are well loved and looked forward to. There is no offence to be taken, rather a collective knowing that we, as a nation, find his sarcasm funny, disarming and good clean fun.

This brings us to Dick Smith’s Australia Day campaign which is in the Kekovich style and, in fact, makes direct reference to him. The Commercials Advise Service has deemed the ad to not qualify for a G rating – presumably because it is full of references to “Dicks” – and therefore not suitable for prime time screening.

Smith is outraged or perhaps feigning it. He should be grateful for the favour they have done him. The ad is fast circulating in social media, heavily reported on and a topic of conversation.  And there is no doubt the public is on his side on this one. They don’t take lightly to nanny state censorship without good reason.

So Dick, Mackers, Australian Lamb and any other brand are welcome to join the fray on this Australia Day, or any other timely occasion. As long as it’s not an over the top or condescending campaign it will create a positive halo.

Amanda Vanstone, in her Sydney Morning Herald column last week urged Australians to start the year on a positive note. “It was a lousy year in many ways,” she writes of last year. “Perhaps you are having trouble getting started because you are suffering a bout of post-2012 blues.”

In real terms it wasn’t a bad year for Australians, especially when compared to our overseas counterparts. Economy wise all reports indicate we have been the envy of our European and American counterparts. Cost of living has gone up in some areas, but declined in plenty of others, to create a positive overall outcome. This was confirmed earlier last week in The Daily Telegraph which reported “local food costs declined by 2.7 percent in the 12 months to the end of September.”

Yet, speaking to Australians you just wouldn’t know it. They’ve been feeling under siege. The negativity in the air has been palpable and taken its toll.

The blame for the national mood can be attributed to constant hostility that has defined public life. The level of antagonism between the major political players has reached what seems like a record low. There has been a distinct absence of any civility or decorum and it entered the public sphere daily. Negativity prevailed. “Do not look to the Parliament as an example of what is good in Australia,” Vanstone urged her readers.

Alas, 2013 will be even worse. It is an election year that will be marked by unprecedented negativity, particularly felt by those unfortunate enough to live in marginal seats and those held by independents.

Despite research clearly telling them that the public is crying out for vision and leadership, both major parties will succumb to painting each other’s leaders as undesirably as possible. For some time now there has been no love lost between the electorate and either of the party leaders. By year end, having been hammered with even more insults and colourful derisions, our perceptions will reach new lows.

Only once the election has been won, and ideally with a healthy margin whoever is the victor, will things settle down. Should it be the coalition that loses they will finally accept having lost the 2007 election and regroup as a policy laden and constructive opposition. Should the government lose, they will accept what many have long assumed to be inevitable and it may even spur them towards real party reform.

There will be two other issues that will weigh us down with a heavy heart in 2013. The Royal Commission into Child Sex Abuse will be harrowing. The degrees of depravity perpetrated by those our society placed inherent trust in will permeate into our homes daily. Australians will be shocked by the sheer scale of abuse and victim’s stories creating a sense of disgust and feelings of living in an unsafe world where nothing can be trusted at face value. Parents will have no choice but to explain to their children concepts and words they have successfully shielded them from, like buggery, rape and grooming by paedophiles. Suspicion of males in caring and guiding professions, however pure their motives, will rise.

The ICAC hearings in NSW into allegations of corruption will reach new heights next year. In a country where corruption is considered to be accepting tickets to the football, free flights or the odd bottle of champagne a re-evaluation will take place. The amount of money reported to be involved is staggering and something we are accustomed to hearing of African dictatorships, not our own elected officials.

2013 will see a lowering of the public mood, and with it consumer confidence. It’s difficult to feel hopeful, optimistic and in a spend thrift mood when we feel under siege.

So Australian will continue to turn inward to enrich their lives and outlook. They will actively seek perspective and smell-the-roses through seemingly insignificant but highly meaningful moments in life. They will surround themselves with family and friends with an ever tighter focus on their circle-of-care.

They will cry out for the positive, the humorous and anything to escape to nastiness of public life, in order to enrich their private ones. So look out for comedies, public celebrations and good news stories.

Media and brands whose audience and target are young people naturally strive to connect with them and to do by speaking their language. Often that means riding on the edge of good taste. They know that by shocking them and confronting taboos they will succeed. They have carte blanche to take the piss out of anything and everything; there are no sacred cows in the media according to young people. As one young man put it to me, “I think we’re a bit more laid back too. Like, we enjoy stuff that’s wrong, the wronger it is, the funnier it is.”

There has been a steady evolution in the media as each program requires even further boundaries to cross. Consider the appeal of shows such as Family Guy, Southpark and American Dad and movies like The Hangover. “It’s just that really irreverent humour … but they just kind happen to have to offend everybody along the way as well,” said one young woman. “We’re kind of open to accepting that offense. Yeah, sometimes you sort of laugh and you go, ‘Oh no, did they just say that?’”

But there is a fine line between cutting-edge, clever and courageous and stupidity, idiocy, and indeed harmful bad taste. That line is when some gets hurt.

The Chaser team discovered this with their skit mocking the Starlight Foundation and sick children. It must have been funny at the time, when sitting around the room throwing ideas for the programme, but it offended the masses. Some things just aren’t funny, like dying children.

Some years ago, then Treasurer Peter Costello relished repeatedly mocking an opposition minister who was accused of misappropriating his travel allowance. Unbeknown to his colleagues or Costello, he had been suffering with depression. The parliamentary baiting, which defines Question Time, and which parliamentarians are supposed to laugh off through thick skin, was too much for this particular politician. The public was amused until the subject of mockery was so demoralised he attempted to take his own life.

2-Day FM has become renowned for its skirting along the edges of acceptability. While most of their pranks pass muster by being harmless, thereby achieving their desired effect, sometimes they just go too far. Kylie Sandilands is renowned for it. His listeners, while amused and entertained, are also awaiting his next over-the-top occurrence where he takes things to the edge. And advertisers targetting similar audiences to the program flock to them benefiting by the association.

In Australia cruelty is sometimes regarded as fair game. Tall Poppies, people who are perceived to believe themselves to be above and better than everyone else and whom we feel are thick skinned enough to take it, are seen as deserving.

The point is that if the butt of the joke doesn’t find it funny, and indeed is profoundly hurt and humiliated by it, then it enters the realm of cruelty instead than comedy. And the consequences, as we have seen, can be devastating.

While giving a presentation recently I was trying to impress upon my audience that all too often we forget to view the world as children do, but rather through our adult eye, and in the process much is lost in translation. So I brought in a colourful, life-sized poster on a stand, the kind found in shops when there is a big promotion on. I asked them to take a good look at it. I then asked them to leave their chairs and get down on their knees and take another look. Suddenly it appeared twice as big, larger-than-life, in fact.

To children everything around them appears twice or even three times larger than the adult perception. But physical size is only one element. Even important is our outlook and attitudes relative to those of kids. As we grow up and become overly familiar with our surroundings and burdened by the realities of day to day life, our sense of excitement and wonderment dulls. The impact of colours, textures, shapes and imagination lose much of their gloss.

Kids do not suffer such affliction – far from it. Their leap between the real world and imaginary ones is far from concrete, allowing them to easily flow between them and often let them merge. That’s why, for example, they much prefer a product which has a picture of Dora or Bart Simpson on it. It is an entry point into a fantasy world which they readily embrace and that really does make those products more fun to consume. Adults, on the other hand, require special permission to embrace the fantasy world, like when attending a costume party, thereby allowing them to be someone else for a short while.

In a similar vein kids have multitudes of milestones in their lives that seem trivial from an adult perspective, but are very significant from theirs. Their young age means experiences of Christmas, Easter and the tooth fairy are few in number and the excitement associated enormous. Even something as innocuous as the changing clocks at daylight savings take on a special dimension. Starting a new term at school is very exciting and a new school year is a mega event. There are endless numbers of these occasions.

Just ask a kid their age and their will tell you “I’m seven and three quarters” or “five and a half”. You don’t find too many 32 year olds doing that.

Similarly the ability to do things they previously were not allowed or able to offer highly significant milestones. Kids will proudly proclaim that they can choose their own clothes now, use an adult spoon, pour their own cereal into a bowl at breakfast, or they can now spell their name or count to 100.

It’s about being attuned to the magnitude of their excitement. Sometimes adults forget and need a reminder in order to see the world as a child does.

The question is as pertinent, if not more so, today, when every brand it seems has a presence on social media. Merely having a presence on Facebook does not make a brand particularly “cool”. In fact, it can actually be counter-productive, exposing a brand for being out of touch and try-hard when it comes to conquering a younger audience. Getting it right on Facebook is fantastic; getting it wrong can well be regarded as negative branding.

I recently spoke with a whole lot of young people about brands on Facebook. I asked them about the pages they follow or “liked” which are not actual people. I wanted to know who is doing it well. Considering the energy and expense brands are putting into their Facebook presence the responses from their audience were lacklustre at best.

Smaller brands did exceptionally well. Boutique brands that helped young people identify and express their individuality. Service providers also did well. Facebook was a perfect avenue to ask or vent and receive a timely response.

For larger brands just having a presence on Facebook was seen as fairly meaningless unless, that is, the brands had something to say that the audience wanted to hear. The alternative could be described as like being at a party when someone calls your name out. When you turn around to look at them they shrug their shoulders and say: ‘no, nothing.”

From the audience’s perspective it’s about a fair exchange. They will give some of their time (or newsfeed space as the case may be) to a brand message for a return. That return may be in several forms: it could be news that they are keen to hear and be the first to know; it could be a competition, promotion, discount or limited offer; it could be entertainment in the form of a clip, joke or meme they regard as good enough to pass on to others; or it could be something that creates a discussion and sense of community among the audience.

Just having young people “like” a brand is not as meaningful as it is all too often made to be. It’s too easy to click on the “like” icon in response to a particular competition or promotion. That does not mean they still “like” them a week or so down the track. Rather they just have not bothered “unliking” them.

Clogging up somenone’s newsfeed is not a good brand promotion. Having something to say that is compelling, and even worthy of passing on to others, is.

The public now has the inclination to shout and the tools with which to do so powerfully.

Jones’s comments two weeks ago that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s father had “died of shame’’ led to a social media backlash which has resulted in 70 companies pulling their advertising from the show.

This in turn led the Macquarie Radio Network to suspend advertising on Alan Jones’s 2GB show and accuse social media activists of “cyber bullying”.

As a nation we loathe personal attacks. Australians have never warmed to advertising that attacks competitors’ offerings rather than promoting their own ( which has been a mainstay of American commercials for decades).

Yet we’ve heard distasteful comments before this latest episode. While Jones’s comments did shock by their level of insensitivity, they were arguably no worse than, say, Belinda Neal telling a pregnant Sophie Mirabella: “your baby will be turned into a demon by evil thoughts”, or Kyle Sandilands’ diatribes.

Jones’s comments have nevertheless galvanised the public and become a vehicle to vent all the nastiness in politics and media that seems to have become a norm in recent years.

It’s a statement against rude, insensitive and hostile personal attacks by public figures. Such behaviour affects the national mood and is in sharp contrast to people’s own lives and values and those parents seek to instil in their kids.

Jones is the perfect target for this outpouring of outrage. He epitomises the tall poppy syndrome where we bring people who believe their own hype, or overstate their importance down to size and we do it with relish. While his path, successes and achievements may be admired, it is his self-righteousness, vehement attacks and inability to consider other points of view that rile.

But the companies that have been targeted by social media boycotts have reacted to this episode in a panicked fashion. They should take a more proactive stance, simply by being more transparent. For example, they could issue strongly worded statements that they disagree completely with Jones’s comments.

In most cases public outrages quickly become passe unless the issue is kept alive.

For this Jones himself is partly to blame. Had he apologised with true contrition rather than a half-hearted explanation, he could probably have moved on by now. And his ongoing commentary and suggestion that he is a victim of cyber bullying inflame his detractors even more.

But mostly this issue is still alive because the paradigm has shifted. Individuals’ only means of expressing their voices publicly used to be a letter to a newspaper or a call to radio talkback. Today any social media user can cause immediate damage to brands and public figures.

Big PR budgets, slick advertising campaigns and a radio broadcasting licence are up against anyone with a Twitter or Facebook account. It just takes others to join the fray, repost and retweet, and a social movement has been created. There are countless examples of brands that have had to capitulate and show contrition in the face of even single complaints on their social media pages.

With few exceptions, brands wish to be seen in a positive light, not associated with controversy and negativity.

When social media campaigns make it into the mainstream media, their impact snowballs. Their platform becomes as big as Jones’s and their voice as loud as his.

Should the campaign continue and appear unrelenting, however, counter-sympathy for Jones will grow. If the issue seems to be about political correctness and silencing someone, the tide will no doubt turn.

Broadcasters, politicians and advertisers no longer have a distinct upper hand in the public sphere. No longer will their comments go unchallenged. They can rail against it, as Jones has done, or accept that their audience can be equally powerful.

Published in Australian Financial Review Opinion Pages 10 October, 2012

Anyone who has visited the US would observe that discount coupons are a staple in their grocery shopping. You may have even had the misfortune of standing at the checkout behind someone holding a pile of newspaper and catalogue cut-outs offering savings in virtually every category. The TLC channel even broadcasts a program called Extreme Couponing, now in its third season, depicting shoppers for whom they are an obsession.

In Australia printed coupons have never quite taken off. This may have to do with a lack of inclination by the major retailers to enter the fray and complicate the checkout process and lengthen checkout times. Or, as I suspect, it may be that Australians have traditionally not been keen on them; that it seen as somewhat shameful to hand over coupons as if they were penny pinchers or desperate.

So coupon promotions in Australia have been rather limited. Shop-a-docket is certainly well known as offering discounts on back of receipts. Yet these are seen to be all too predictable and limited in their offerings, most notably associated with carpet cleaning, DVD hire and fast food. The Entertainment Book has been widely popular, especially for its distribution through charities, yet may be on the wane. Beyond that coupons have been the mainstay of fast food outlets offering cheap deals in letter boxes.

Times have changed, however, and there is no reason to think coupons could not be a regular feature of our shopping landscape, for several reasons.

The proliferation of on-line coupon sites has trained consumers to utilise these. Few people have been unaffected by Groupon, Scoopon, Living Social and the seeming endless numbers of others offering experiences and services at a cut price.

The rise of Aldi, Costco and obsessive discounting by major brands and Private Labels has led to an expectation of paying less. It some categories paying full price is no longer acceptable, with consumers having been trained to expect a discount by someone at any point in time.

But most significantly consumers’ appetite for smart shopping, paying less and feeling like they are beating retailers and brands at their own game is a powerful force. Striving to pay less, even if it’s a few cents, is not considered shameful but smart. More than dollars and cents it is about paying less then someone else does.

Just as I consider this issue Woolworths have been spruiking their Sticky Specials promotion. Consumers are invited to place stickers with barcodes on specific products and receive those discounts.