farmdoc's blog post number 564

Sweetheart Vivienne frequently muses about how she’d spend hypothetical massive wealth to make a real difference in the world. I don’t think she’s come to a conclusion yet. But even modest amounts of money should be spent wisely. For example A$15M. That’s the amount the ANZ Bank’s spending to develop and implement a ‘new brand’ (whatever that means) [1, 2]. M&C Saatchi Melbourne [3] got the development gig. And what did the bank get in return? Two weeks ago it launched three things: first, a sublimely wondrous new logo (graphic, lower) which is vastly similar to the prior one (graphic, upper). Second, a sublimely patronising tagline ‘We live in your world’. And third, a sublimely stupid TV ad [4]. My questions to the bank are these: First, how do the three blue blobs symbolise ‘We live in your world’? Second, doesn’t ‘We live in your world’ conjure an image of the bank as an interloper? And third, would the bank want to do business with the morons in the ad who wander around with things attached to their heads – be those things blobs or whatever? Surely in these early post-GFC days, banks would best re-brand themselves via better products and improved service. If they do that, the customers will come. $15M to get what they got, beggars belief. And who’ll be the big winners? Why the signwriters and the printers, of course [5].

P.S. Farmdoc and Sweetheart Vivienne hold an ANZ investment. That’s why Farmdoc’s peeved by ANZ wasting this $15M.

farmdoc's blog post number 483

Dr Bernard Nicholson (1917-2003) was a President of the Royal Australasian College of Medical Administrators (1972-4). The Bernard Nicholson Prize is awarded annually to the top candidate in the College’s Fellowship examination. I won it in 1978. So I know a thing or two about the structure and function – and dysfunction – of health systems. During the five decades of my medical career (so far), the only constant in our health system – at national, state and local levels – is change. Incessant inquiries and stakeholder submissions have led to reports. And restructuring. Oh yes – the restructuring. Pulling the bits apart. Then putting them together again. Like Humpty Dumpty. But in ever changing permutations. Redrawing organisational charts. Devising new lines of upward reporting and downward delegation. New department names. New agency names. New job titles. As if any of this matters. I assume the aim’s to improve prevention, service access, waiting times, treatment efficacy, and error and complication rates – with the bottom line of maximising the nation’s health. If so, I’ll bet anything that changing the status quo won’t bring us one jot closer to the aim. None of the past restructures has. So why would the current ones – including this Victorian one announced last Thursday – do better. The only winners are the politicians – who show they’re doing something – and the printers and signwriters. Maybe in my next life I’ll return as a printer or signwriter. I wonder if they have the equivalent of a Bernard Nicholson Prize.