Haymarket 50 Years: Meanwhile years ... in the next 50 years

Quement, Tim Kelsey, Dianne Thompson and Sir Howard Bernstein, who

consider the future of media, sport, motoring, medicine, management and
the built environment. Not only did they accept our ridiculous brief,
but, over the next 12 pages, they found a lot of visionary things to
say, too.

MEDIA/ADVERTISING - Martin Sorrell

WPP Group's Sir Martin Sorrell talks to Caroline Marshall about the rise
of Asia-Pacific, print media's battle with the internet, becoming carbon
neutral and what's in store for Haymarket.

The advertising and marketing communications group WPP comprises more
than 100 companies on the global communications stage. Last year, its
21st, saw revenues up 10 per cent to almost £5.9 billion and
profit before tax up more than 14 per cent to £766 million.

But the reputation of its 62-year-old founder, Sir Martin Sorrell, is
not just a function of size. It's because, in identifying the next big
media issue, Sorrell has so often proved uncannily correct.Let's take a
few examples ... Below the line rather than advertising was the original
premise for WPP and, of course, it's grown faster. A few years ago, he
was making a lot of noise about media inflation, then about
media-neutral planning, then he talked a lot about PVRs. He forecast the
most recent UK downturn, and even gave it an enduring descriptor: the
bath-shaped recession.

So who better to speculate on what advertising and media, and Haymarket,
might look like in 2057?

First, what kind of planning do you do? Five or ten years? Does WPP ever
talk about the 50-year plan?

Our process is the three-year rolling plan and within that a strategic
plan from which we agree annual budgets. But there are issues with a
50-year life, such as geography and techonolgy.

The geography issue is dominated by Asia-Pacific. Will that
continue?

It's difficult for those of us in the West to comprehend the scale of
Asia- Pacific's potential development over the next 50 years. Currently,
only roughly 150 to 200 million Chinese of the 1.3 billion (the actual
number may be as high as 1.5 billion) total can afford the goods that we
are trying to market to them. However, this will change rapidly in the
coming years.

We find that increasingly the marketing world is becoming two-paced, or
even three-paced, geographically and functionally. Asia-Pacific, Latin
America, Africa, the Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe are
outpacing the US, and the US is outpacing Western Europe (perhaps with
the exception of Spain). The internet and other new technologies are
outpacing network television, newspapers and magazines.

You're considered something of a compulsive stayer-in-toucher, and
famously addicted to your BlackBerry. How have your own media
consumption habits changed over the past few years? Multiply this to the
general population - what does this mean for our industry?

My own habits have changed dramatically. I read more dailies, less
weeklies but I do surf weeklies' websites. I continuously stream
websites such as CNBC and Bloomberg. I want news and analysis quickly. I
watch more cable and satellite TV, less network. As Nicholas Negroponte
is fond of saying, I have more ear time than eye time. I've been playing
with my iPhone.

The truth is that decision-makers in media agencies and owners tend to
be in their fifties and sixties; their sons and daughters and
grandchildren are shifting to multi-tasking on the web, PVRs, iPods,
video iPods, iPhones and so one. But many leading executives are in
denial. They believe - or hope - that they won't have to tackle the
changes on their watch.

You sound very media-literate for a 62-year-old. Can you programme your
iPod?

Hmm, in a limited way.

What about media owners - which print owners in your view will dominate
in the future because they have mastered the connection with the new
internet platforms?

Rupert Murdoch, definitely, given his purchase of MySpace and other
internet assets. Conde Nast too. And a wonderful Scandinavian company
called Shibsted.

Was it a mistake on the part of print media owners to not charge for
content on the web from the outset?

In their view, no. In my view, it was a mistake, yes. If you can't
charge for content as strong as Vogue's, when can you? It's easier to
take the consumer down in price rather than ask for more. But if you
start at zero, you can't charge ten. Maybe the internet has permanently
reduced traditional media owners' revenues and hence their
profitability.

As we know, creative agencies have paid a very high price for ignoring
media. What's the way forward over the next few decades there?

Media agencies have declared UDI and enjoy their independence. Just as
you can't put toothpaste back in the tube, they will not report again to
account, planning or creative management. The way forward is to house
the media planners in the media agency, but with them continuing to be
employed by the creative agency. We're also experimenting with the idea
now of a creative agency being positioned within a digital agency.

Let's talk about carbon neutrality and the green debate: will others
follow BSkyB and NewsCorp into carbon neutrality? Could WPP ever take
such a position?

2007 will be seen as the year the world woke up to climate change. WPP
has committed to becoming carbon neutral by the end of this year, to cut
our carbon footprint by 20 per cent over the next four years and to
continue to offset our remaining CO2 emissions.

Is climate change going to be a lasting business trend or an important
fashion?

Three events in the last year or so have made sure it will continue to
dominate. First, the deal between Warren Buffett and Bill Gates to
absorb Microsoft stock into Berkshire Hathaway to enable the Gates
Foundation to do greater charity work. Second, Richard Branson's
decision to donate up to $3 billion in profits from his Virgin
companies to good causes. Finally, the actions you mention by Rupert and
James Murdoch, probably stimulated by Al Gore's film.

It will be an increasing imperative for companies to be responsible
businesses and increasingly embarrassing for companies not to do so.

Finally, what's your view on Haymarket's future? How will Haymarket
develop over the next five decades? Will we still be Heseltine-owned or
will a 140-year-old Rupert Murdoch own us? Or Google?

Michael is one of the unique entrepreneurs. There are very few people
who can found, run and develop a company as he's done. It's very much
his empire and a fast-growing one at that. Haymarket, you'll know, faces
the same challenges as we do: understanding the important of MySpace,
and so on. Its independence seems to be a core value, whatever happens.
For my money, the son or daughter of Rupert Heseltine will be in charge
in 50 years' time.

- Caroline Marshall is the consultant editor of Haymarket Brand
Media.

MEDICINE - Tim kelsey

Dr Foster Intelligence's Tim Kelsey talks to Colin Cooper about the
future of the NHS, the rise of polyclinics, the demise of district
hospitals and why we will all have dedicated life managers.

Tim Kelsey left Cambridge with a history degree in 1987. He became a
Middle East reporter for The Independent and later a combat reporter in
the first Gulf War for The Independent on Sunday. He went on to present
and co-produce award-winning documentaries for Channel 4 and the BBC,
before becoming news editor of The Sunday Times in 1998. He co-founded
Dr Foster in 2000 with the mission of repatriating complex NHS data for
the public good. The company's ethics committee, plus a research unit at
Imperial College, has helped provide academic credibility. This, along
with the company's pioneering attitude, flair for marketing and contacts
at the Department of Health, helped convince the NHS to invest £12
million in the company in February 2006. The resulting joint venture, Dr
Foster Intelligence, where Kelsey is chairman of the executive board,
aims to speed up the development of information services in the health
sector.

We are constantly hearing that the NHS is "on its knees". Will it still
exist in 2057?

I don't think the NHS is on its knees today. There are real problems
with variations in the quality of care but standards overall are
demonstrably improving. I also believe that we will still have a
publicly funded healthcare system in 50 years' time.

What will be the big differences?

In 2057, rationed resources will mean that the NHS will need to be far
more targeted and proactive in managing people's wellness so that they
use expensive hospitals and GPs less often.

The NHS and local government will share the same administrative
infrastructure and will work together to profile local communities for
their health risk and use direct marketing techniques, including
tele-marketing, to intervene with the most needy.

We will receive a monthly "health" statement from the local authority
telling us how much we have cost the local NHS and reminding us to take
better care of ourselves, with incentives for improving health
behaviour.

Can the NHS survive the burden of paying for expensive new
treatments?

The market will find a way to make innovations affordable. I can see
science achieving two important objectives by 2057: a cure for several
cancers, including breast cancer, and a working therapy for Alzheimer's
disease.

How is healthcare in the UK going to be affected by the growing number
of private companies offering services?

The NHS was founded on the values of being accessible to all and free at
the point of delivery. But in the 60s those values became confused with
a view of the NHS as a bricks-and-mortar public sector institution. We
have moved on - the modern NHS now wants, and needs, to work with the
independent and voluntary sectors in a much more collaborative way. By
2057, I predict that the private and voluntary sector will actually
manage more patients than the public sector, most of them at home or in
community contexts. The values of the NHS will remain intact, and, as
long as providers and carers meet set quality standards, nobody will
mind whether their treatment is public or private.

It all sounds very complicated for the average patient. How will they
know where to go and what to ask for?

Public services are already too complex for people to negotiate. What I
see happening is the development of a case manager role. Each of us will
have a dedicated adviser to guide us through our whole life experience
with those major public services that are funded through national
taxation. They will work a bit like mortgage brokers. I can even see a
new industry growing up to provide this advice, which people will pay
for or be subsidised to receive.

So how do you see the roles of health professionals and institutions
changing over the next 50 years?

GP practices will become part of larger, more "industrial" facilities,
like the polyclinics recently proposed for London. There will be fewer
hospitals and the district general hospital will largely disappear,
leaving a smaller number of bigger, more specialised hospitals. People
will find this change very difficult to come to terms with because
nobody likes hospital closures. But they will realise that fewer, better
hospitals means improved patient care. Employers of all sizes will come
to see the value of providing health services in the workplace, and they
will become important providers of health information.

And where will the private providers fit in to this new landscape?

The polyclinic where you go to see a GP, for example, could be run by a
private company. So you could have a Virgin Super Surgery with 25 GPs,
lots of complementary therapists, and a wide range of diagnostic
services. It would be the local nexus for health and well-being.

One of the most common complaints about the NHS is the variable quality
of services. Is that likely to improve, and how will the public, or
their advisers, be able to judge?

There is huge variation from hospital to hospital but I believe that
will reduce as the system becomes more responsive. I can see local
people becoming much more involved in the running of health services,
particularly in areas with special needs.

We also need to develop a measure that the general public can use to
judge quality and that will be as useful to them as the price ticket on
a television when trying to choose between different models.

What I would like to see, hopefully in the next ten or 20 years, is
effectively a "share price" for each healthcare provider. They will
publish a small set of health quality indicators, or outcomes, and that
will be the "share price" on which they are judged.

What part do you think advertising and marketing will play in the new
healthcare environment?

Providers of health and social care are entering a very competitive
environment in which patients and carers will make more informed
decisions about the kinds of treatments they want and who is best placed
to provide them. I expect direct-to-consumer advertising by NHS
hospitals will happen first and become quite normal within the next ten
years.

But the really important contribution of marketing will be in the
encouragement of a culture within health and social care that
understands the public service benefit of listening to the consumer. The
NHS will become increasingly expert in predicting the needs of its
customers - and therefore managing them effectively - when it starts to
properly research their behaviour.

- Colin Cooper is the editor-in-chief of GP.

MOTORING - Patrick Le quement

Renault's Patrick le Quement talks to Steve Sutcliffe about the
emergence of more female designers, the need for environmentally
friendly materials and why size now matters for cars.

Patrick le Quement was born in 1945 in Marseille, France. He holds a BA
Honours degree in product design from Birmingham Institute of Art &
Design. In 1995, he was appointed the senior vice-president of quality
and corporate design at Renault, and in the same year joined the Renault
Management Committee.

What does the future hold for the motor-car in 2007?

Someone once said that what's important is not to predict the future but
to make it possible, and I would like to think that's how we view the
world of cars in 2007.

What's going to happen over the next 50 years is almost impossible to
predict but, overall, I believe genuinely that the next 50 years and
beyond will be exciting. I believe the motor-car is an extension of the
self and, as such, I'm certain it will never disappear, or become an
unemotional product like a refrigerator.

What, then, will be the key influences on the industry over the next 50
years?

I think the most important influences are going to come from the world's
emerging countries. From places such as Korea, China, India, Russia,
Romania and Bulgaria. That's where the most exciting new designers are
going to come from. And what's even more interesting is that in a lot of
cases those designers are, and will be, female. Which is when truly
fresh ideas will start to emerge.

And what about car technology? How do you think that is going to change
over the next half-century?

One of the most important challenges for future car-making will be to
further reduce development time so as to make sure we offer fresh food
rather than frozen food, so to speak. But we know also that because of
safety our cars have become heavier recently, and this trend probably
reached its peak last year. So I would say that in future we are
re-entering an era where the search for lightness is vital.

Is there any individual who you think might influence the industry in
the future?

Recently I was interviewed for a book alongside the designer Philippe
Starck, and one thing Phillipe said that struck me was how important the
search for new materials has become. He believes that one of the key
issues today is the search for a material that can replace
petroleum-based plastic that's easy to manufacture and high in quality,
entirely recyclable and therefore environmentally friendly.

But I think metal is still going to remain an important factor in the
car industry for quite some time. In the early 90s we had the use of
many different materials, but I think that with the rise of oil prices
we are finding that steel, in fact, is making a comeback.

Of course, we all want a new wonder material to appear but, as yet, it
hasn't happened. So the dream we had until the early 90s, when we
thought about being able to imagine shapes and use new materials to
extend the natural motion of the body, has been shattered because the
right materials haven't appeared.

Do you feel this has restricted you as a designer, and restricted the
development of the car in general?

Not at all, because I'm an optimist overall. I don't believe that we are
doomed for chaos and famine and so on. I think one should not
underestimate the ingenuity of mankind. OK, there are plenty of examples
of things that we have not done well as a species, but there are also
plenty of things that have gone extremely well. If you look at India,
for example (a country that some regard as being chaotic, because in
many ways it is chaotic), the way they organise the delivery of meals is
quite amazing. There are something like five million meals in Bombay
that are distributed every day, despite the chaos of the city. And they
always arrive hot, exactly what you've chosen, and on time.

This kind of ingenuity and the basically good side of human nature is
what will keep us thriving forwards, making progress, especially when it
comes to looking after our environment, which is, of course, an
absolutely vital part of that progress. When people get organised, they
can do wonderful things

Like dream up great car ad campaigns?

Indeed!

Renault has come up with some genuinely strong ads in the past. How do
you see car advertising changing in the future?

To look forwards, you often need to look back. I remember going to
Berlin a week after the wall came down and one of the most incredible
things was that there was no advertising. It was like walking into a
black-and-white movie. I think in life advertising adds colour and is
now part of our environment. And the way I see advertising growing is
via the internet. People who have invested in the net are making the
most progress and are reaching their target audience. I think
word-of-mouth advertising, using the net as a basis, is going to become
popular.

As companies like Renault grow and sell more cars, there is, it seems,
less space in which to drive. What can we do to make sure we don't run
out of room in 50 years' time? And how do you think governments should
be involved in solving this problem?

The idea of having a five-metre long car to carry an average of 1.4
people is ridiculous and will need to be legislated against in the
future. But I think we're faced with a bigger dilemma in that we cannot
continue the chaos of traditional commuting. That's where governments
need to take more drastic action. Our politicians are being timid but I
can see a time where we will be forced into working more from home,
having meetings once a week, using vehicles that have three seats and
which are a maximum of 3.5 metres long. But the solution must not be in
the form of one sweeping statement of changes. Solving this problem will
require time and macro-management. I think it was the PM of Italy,
Prodi, who said: "If you take the right decision for your country, you
are assured of not being re-elected." In a way, whoever tries to solve
our traffic problems will probably suffer the same fate.

On a different note, how do you see motor-sport evolving in the future?
Do you see it blossoming or fading away?

I think motor-sport is going to develop; it's not going to regress. Of
course, Formula One will need to change radically because it will
clearly not be tolerated in the future as it stands. Maybe we'll
eventually see bio-fuel or even hybrids in F1, with far lower emissions
and fuel consumption. That has to happen, and I'm sure it will.

- Steve Sutcliffe is the editor-at-large of Autocar.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT - Howard Bernstein

Manchester City Council's Sir Howard Bernstein talks to Richard Garlick
about coping with a terrorist bomb, hosting the 2002 Commonwealth Games
and the future of our key cities.

Sir Howard Bernstein was born in North Manchester in 1953. He is the
chief executive of Manchester City Council. Bernstein joined the council
as a junior clerk in 1971, rising to become the deputy chief executive
in 1992, before moving to his current job nine years ago. Together with
the city council leader, Sir Richard Leese, he led the regeneration of
Manchester City Centre after the 1996 IRA bomb, for which he received an
honorary fellowship from the council of the Royal Institute of British
Architects.

He also helped to lead Manchester's successful bid for the 2002
Commonwealth Games, and was the secretary of its organising committee.
He sits on the board of the Olympic Delivery Authority.

Sir Howard, you have said that Manchester can lead the way among the
northern cities in achieving faster economic growth than London. Is that
realistic?

We have been growing as fast as London for the past few years, and
that's good. But we need to grow faster than London if we are going to
close the productivity gap between North and South. If we deliver our
target of 210,000 new jobs over the next 15 years in Greater Manchester,
then we will grow at a faster rate than any other city or region in the
country.

What kind of interventions do you and other northern cities need to make
over coming decades to transform that productivity performance?

We have to make a step change in skills development. We need to get a
much stronger focus around skilling people up for jobs we are creating
rather than for jobs that don't exist. Look at the scarcity of
construction skills in the UK, for instance. We're importing labour from
Europe.

The other thing for me is worklessness. We really do need to up our game
collectively in the public sector in incentivising people to make a
beneficial contribution by getting back into the labour force. It's a
huge issue in all the big cities. In some cases, you are seeing a second
generation of worklessness, which is creating its own cycle of
deprivation. We have got to get a grip on that.

We also need housing choice. In a place like Manchester, affordability
is not exclusively about social rented housing. It's also about how you
can create a housing market in which people from different income groups
can access housing for sale. That's about creating new financial
instruments. We have got to do a lot more work on that, and so has the
Government.

What are the potential constraints on growth over the next decades for
cities such as Manchester?

Global economic conditions could, of course, have an effect. Transport
will also have an impact. If we don't eliminate transport problems,
rising congestion will cost us 30,000 jobs or more over the next ten
years or so. Employers want access to big labour markets. If people
can't get to the centre or other parts of Greater Manchester because of
rising congestion levels, and if people from poorer communities can't
access jobs via public transport, then we are going to start to lose our
competitive advantage.

This is why we are seeking investment in public transport, reform of
transport institutions and peak-hour road pricing. Eight councils in
Greater Manchester are for the package and two are against it. We are
slightly disappointed that not everyone could support it - it means that
the pace at which we develop gets affected. But we will continue to work
with those authorities in the hope of bringing them on board.

The Government is encouraging informal groups of councils in big
conurbations to consider coming together on a more formal footing in
city regional bodies. Would you like to see the Manchester city-region
put on a statutory basis?

How we work together will fundamentally influence future growth.
Discretion and voluntary co-operation only takes people so far. If we
are going to hold to account other public sector agencies who have an
influence on the social and economic health of the city, you have got to
have some teeth. We will work very hard to ensure that there is a
consensus around pursuing radical agendas around economic growth. But we
can't compromise on the strategic priorities, so ultimately there has to
be a mechanism established that enables the clear majority of local
authorities (in a city region) to support those strategies.

What are the key lessons of Manchester's regeneration for other
cities?

First, leadership. Some people have to articulate a vision about the
future direction of a place, and explain how you are going to get there.
You have constantly got to look at new initiatives to move the city
forward - what we are doing about road pricing is one of many
manifestations of this.

The second thing is partnership. Partnership is about sharing the burden
of leadership in terms of implementing the vision, recognising that
local authorities can't do everything by themselves anymore. We have
been very good as a city at working with our public sector partners in
defining an economic vision, but really it has been private sector-led
organisations such as Midas, our inward investment agency, and
Manchester Enterprises, our economic development agency, that have led
that process of renaissance. Midas helped to secure the Bank of New
York's relocation to Manchester, which was probably the most
high-profile relocation to a place outside London for a long time.

The third thing is to be resilient in the face of setbacks. Even after
winning a national competition (to be the location for a new
super-casino, a decision now under review by the Government), we still
end up having to fight for what we think is right. There were the
terrorist bombs, and difficulties over funding for the Metrolink tram.
We have done a lot in Manchester, but I can assure you nothing has been
easily done.

What does Manchester's revival say about the role of the capital versus
the provincial cities?

What Manchester is now doing, perhaps for the first time in many years,
is demonstrating that there is a real alternative to London and the
South-East. What I wouldn't want anyone to think is that we believe that
having a very strong, globally successful London is not important to the
UK, because it is. But London is not the only centre of economic
achievement in the UK, and places like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds,
Newcastle and Sheffield have an important role to play in achieving a
strong economy.

- Richard Garlick is the editor of Regeneration & Renewal.

MANAGEMENT - Dianne Thompson

Camelot's Dianne Thompson talks to Matthew Gwyther about running a
'large' company, the future of charitable giving and the struggle by
senior managers to achieve a work/life balance.

Dianne Thompson, the chief executive of Camelot Group, is one of the
UK's most prominent female bosses. After a degree in French and English,
she started out as a marketing trainee at the Co-op. Over 30 years, she
has worked in education and at companies as diverse as ICI Paints,
Sterling Roncraft, Woolworths and Sandvik Saws. From 1994-1997 she
worked at Signet Group (the remnants of Ratner's the jewellers after the
infamous prawn sandwich remark) - "they were the hardest three years of
my entire career. I didn't laugh once." Camelot has just been granted
the licence to operate the lottery until 2019 and with it comes the task
of raising £2.2 billion of the funding required to stage the
Olympics in 2012.

You've got 30 years of management experience under your belt in vastly
different organisations. What has that taught you about the differences
between large and small organisations? Do you see huge size as a
disadvantage?

There's a huge difference and size does create difficulty. I've been
very lucky because although Camelot appears to be a large company, with
a turnover of more than £5 billion, involved with 26,500 retailers
and equipped with large marketing budgets, I only employ 970 people. So
by most definitions that makes us an SME. The powerful advantage is that
everyone at Camelot knows me. They all see me at least twice a year in
small groups. And I could probably name 600-700 of them.

You had to make changes when you took over in 2000.

We initially lost the second licence in 2000 and a judicial review
followed which eventually we won. But by May of 2001 I'd lost more than
a third of my staff. They had to look for other jobs and who could blame
them? I inherited a company that was battle-scarred and weary, one which
needed leading. We'd lost our creativity. As commercial director, I was
taking decisions like which day of the week we should have the car-park
cleaned.

I had no formal management training or education. However, I do believe
very strongly in its use. I still think a huge amount comes down to
instinct - I'm a firm believer in managing by common sense.

Funny that so many people get it so wrong.

That's because many senior managers just aren't true to themselves.
There's no point pretending to be something you're not. You get what you
see with me. I'm a Northern working-class woman. I was taught from day
one that to get anything worthwhile in life you had to work bloody hard.
Nothing comes on a plate. But if you believe you can do it, then most of
the time you can. Maybe I don't have oodles of self-confidence but you
can compensate for that by working hard.

Can there be successful companies in the 21st century that work in more
traditional ways - according to established hierarchies using
old-fashioned, top-down command and control methods?

It's not easy to do what we've tried to achieve here. You need to find
different ways of working depending on your size. In a very large
organisation you have a pyramid structure with a pinnacle. Then it
becomes vital that you have leaders at all sorts of levels through the
organisation who walk the talk. Look at Fujitsu, for example - one of
our shareholders. It can be really tough for them with a Japanese head
office and a huge worldwide operation that includes a British subsidiary
here. Consistency of message is far harder. Those companies that
develop, sustain and nurture a culture that successfully motivates their
workforce and binds them together will be the most successful.

Your critics say that Camelot isn't that hard a company to run because
it's like being Father Christmas 365 days a year. Running Exxon Mobile
or a large hedge fund's a lot trickier, isn't it?

Camelot operates the UK National Lottery on less than 5 per cent of
revenues making us the most cost-effective lottery in Europe - that's no
mean feat. We're private, but under intense scrutiny and we have an
unprecedented number of stakeholders - the 70 per cent of the population
who play, alongside distributors, Parliament, retailers and
beneficiaries. When grants are made to what people perceive as
"controversial" good causes we receive complaints - despite the fact
that we don't choose where money goes. That isn't easy - it's also
challenging to balance the different interests of such a diverse range
of stakeholders.

So is the manager's job more difficult than when you set out 30 years
ago?

I think it is. There is a greater need for transparency and explanation
for your actions than there was 20-30 years ago. Business has been
rocked by some major financial scandals and they left a suspicion about
business in the public eye. The consumer is more demanding, with more
access to knowledge because of the internet and the speeding up of
communications. Globalisation has changed everything as well. That
affects people like me. I don't have a job any more - it's a way of
life. Work is all-inclusive - laptop, BlackBerry, mobile on holiday.
Totally in contact all the time.

This doesn't sound like an ideal future for those in senior
positions.

It's difficult to be the chief executive of any company and not be
involved all the time. But I believe in work/life balance for my staff -
even if I'm not that brilliant at it myself.

Fifty years ago, we had premium bonds. Where will the lottery be in 50
years?

Of course the lottery is very different from premium bonds and always
has been - for starters, we're not an investment product, we're much
more like an FMCG or a leisure company.

As part of the recent bid competition we've spent a lot of time looking
at the future. Evolving technology will offer greater convenience and
new ways to play; that may change how people interact with us and how we
do things but our ultimate values, our goals, won't change - it's still
about delivering a fun product, creating winners and maximising returns
to Good Causes in a socially responsible way.

We've developed some exciting plans for a World Game and new lottery
lifestyle games - offering more experiential prizes. We're also planning
multiplayer games - and a new Player Card to help make lost tickets a
thing of the past. Those innovations will help us to appeal to new
audiences and a more diverse consumer.

But amid the possibilities, there is one element for success that rarely
changes. A wise company will invest in its employees, the human
element.

- Matthew Gwyther is the editor of Management Today.

SPORT - Seb Coe

The London Olympic Organising Committee's Lord Coe talks to Paul Simpson
about sport's relevance in the UK, boxing and why the England football
team will never win the World Cup.

A youthful 51, the chairman of the London Organising Committee for the
2012 Olympics, Lord Coe, has won at the Olympics three times: twice as a
runner (with golden 1,500m runs in 1980 and 1984) and once as a wannabe
host. A serial world record-breaker - in 1981, he ran the 1,000 metres
in 2.13.40, a record that stood until 1997 - Coe has parlayed his
athletic prowess into careers in politics as a Tory MP and right-hand
man to William Hague and sports administration. He is already seen as a
possible future president of the International Olympic Committee.

Participation in sport is falling and parents are worried about letting
kids play in public spaces - assuming they have a public space to play
in. With all that in mind, do you think anybody who isn't getting paid
to do so will be playing sport in 2057?

Sport wouldn't have lasted 3,300 years if people were purely motivated
by money. I didn't stop running when I retired professionally. David
Beckham would be playing in a park somewhere if he hadn't made it at
Manchester United. Sport has always been about self-exploration,
achieving excellence and the ability to overcome challenges.

But aren't we becoming a nation that increasingly watches sport rather
than playing it?

People have simplistic views of this. Some people blame computer games,
others blame the sale of school playing fields. For me, the built
environment has done more than anything to edit exercise out of our
daily lives. Go into a hotel and try to walk up one flight of stairs -
you'll be lucky to find one.

It's all of these things and more. That's why it's not enough just to
sit here thinking we've got the Olympics in 2012 and people will want to
come and participate. You need the structure, strategy and facilities -
it always seemed slightly risible to me that you needed the Olympics to
give a city like London (with nine-and-a-half million people) a velopark
and a championship swimming pool. London isn't just behind other world
class cities. Its sporting infrastructure, over the past 20 years,
hasn't been as good as in Sheffield, where I grew up.

Most of all, you need role models. People like Beckham, Lewis Hamilton
and Paula Radcliffe. I want someone who is pretending to be Tiger Woods
on their PlayStation to want to be Tiger on the golf course.

So you don't see computer games and the internet as the enemy.

Technology will give youngsters access to their role models in ways we
have not even begun to imagine.

But you would be disappointed if, in some way, the Olympics didn't
encourage more Britons to play sport.

The key words are "in some way". The Olympics will highlight all sorts
of games that are barely on the radar. I went to a school in North-East
London where they had bought a manual from Poland and were playing
handball. I'd never seen handball in person - you have to stay up to the
early hours and turn to channel four hundred and something just to get
it on television - but why shouldn't more people play handball?

In the 70s, experts were predicting that one in eight of us would be
playing table tennis, yet only 3 per cent of us do. Would you like to
give a hostage to fortune and predict a sport that will be massive 50
years from now? Badminton, perhaps?

We did see a jump in interest in badminton after the success at the
Athens Olympics. A lot depends on the governing bodies. You might have
success but you have to maintain that. In ice-skating, we had John
Curry, Robin Cousins and Torvill and Dean in the 70s and 80s. Now we're
having trouble getting a skater into a final. Every sport has to change
with the times. You have to format your sport to suit the age without
losing your underpinning philosophy or alienating the purists.

Do you fear for the future of boxing, a sport that seems to be
increasingly politically incorrect?

I know a lot of people have different ideas about this but, as former
steward on the Board of Control, I'm a great proponent of boxing.
Properly regulated, it's a great sport, one I would encourage my kids to
go into if that's what they wanted to do. Critics often forget the
extraordinary amount of social work that boxing clubs do, also
remembering that very few kids who go to these clubs end up as
fighters.

As a Chelsea season ticket holder, do you think that there are too many
foreigners in the Premiership?

I can see that if clubs just hoover up all the international talent, it
makes it harder for English players. But, having watched Chelsea for 40
years, I think my kids are learning more about football from Claude
Makalele, Gianfranco Zola and Didier Drogba than I did watching Micky
Droy and Vinnie Jones. Thirty years ago, we'd get excited if a centre
half could trap a ball!

Do you think America will have "got" soccer by 2057?

God alone knows. Much of America does get soccer now. More Americans
play soccer than many other sports, certainly more than play NFL.

It's hard to see it succeeding as a TV sport unless the domestic league
improves.

Yes, but countries with less demanding leagues often do better at the
big tournaments. Players aren't injured as often. The US reached the
last eight in 2002, Greece won Euro 2004, whereas our players enter a
tournament on the wrong end of 70 games.

So you don't see England winning the World Cup?

We won't win it because we never enter properly prepared. The players
never have enough time together and by the time the World Cup starts
they're running on empty.

How fast will the mile be run by 2057?

No idea. In 1937, Sidney Wooderson ran the mile in 4.06.04. That's come
down to 3.43.13. Running surfaces will improve, running shoes will get
better, our understanding of the human body and psychology will increase
and through the legitimate - I stress the word "legitimate" - appliance
of science, that time will come down.

In the next 50 years, do you see doctors prescribing sport as a
treatment?

It's already happening. Dr Bill Kirkup, the public health director for
the North-East, says that access to sporting activity and exercise would
be as important to the promotion of public health as hospitals and
medical infrastructure. When I was in Gateshead, I saw ten or 12 stroke
victims on the treadmill. Instead of just taking beta-blockers, they
were doing what it took to minimise the risk of another attack.

- Paul Simpson is the editor of DCM and Champions magazines.