Skip to main content

If business could behave like religions

Religions are businesses:

  • They all have brands and logos.
  • They sell products and use incentives (forgiveness, blessings, afterlife, comfort etc).
  • Most have high street outlets. The Church of England has 16,000 branches in the UK.
  • They employ sales and marketing professionals to sell their brands (we call them priests).
  • They issue product manuals (bible, koran etc).
  • They provide aftersales support (worship, confessionals...).
  • They use recruitment campaigns (christmas, festivals, brainwashing in schools...).
  • Their officials have uniforms.
  • Their founders are worshipped.

But there are also a number of differences between religions and businesses:

  • Their license to trade is often protected by laws such as blasphemy.
  • They are permitted to brainwash children (no broadcast watershed for religious messages). They are even allowed to take control of children's entire education through branded faith schools.
  • There is no equivalent to Trade Descriptions or checks on claims they make. They can claim anything to be the Truth without needing to provide evidence or any form of safety checks.
  • They are allowed to mutilate people (especially children) and animals with impunity.
  • In some societies, religions are allowed to murder customers who leave their brands (apostasy).
  • They can, with impunity, threaten customers who consider leaving (eternal damnation etc) or who consider buying other brands (eg. 5 of the 10 Commandments are about making sure customers stay loyal).
  • They can use loudspeakers from their shops to sell their brands.
  • They can force customers to eat (or not eat) certain foods.
  • They are allowed to bury dead people next to their shops.
  • They are not taxed.

So, in the interests of fairness, I propose that businesses should be permitted the same rights afforded to religions. For example:

  • Coca Cola can demonstrate their war against obesity by providing Coke Schools for children where all food is nutritionally controlled.
  • All marketing is permitted without annoying Trading Standards regulations.
  • Claims for all products can be made without the need for laboratory or safety testing.
  • There are no age restrictions for recruitment and parental approval is not required in schools.
  • The state will recognise being married by your favourite brands. M&S and Waitrose weddings?
  • All iPhones and iPads will be programmed to celebrate Steve Jobs birthday... assuming their batteries last that long :-(
  • Disloyal customers can be threatened by eternal damnation or even death in some markets where they like that sort of thing.
  • Fundamentalism will be acceptable (Apple advocates?).
  • All businesses should be taxed as charities and will not have to charge or pay VAT.


Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite