An app is coming up for those who don’t want to be single.

Like everything else, being single has been politicized. There are those who say that they enjoy being single. They like living on their own. Well, you’ve got to respect that point of view.

Then there are others who some might say are desperate not to be single, or yet others who want to enjoy the company of someone in their lives. They might be young, they might be middle-aged, they might be retired, and through circumstances they are left on their own. Unfortunately, sadly, tragically in some cases. For those who have spent most of their lives sharing their homes, routines and everyday experiences with someone else, suddenly finding themselves alone can be a considerable psychological shock. The silence in the house, the absence of conversation, having nobody to share the small events of the day with, or simply somebody to sit alongside in the evening, can become a heavy burden. Loneliness is not just an emotional inconvenience. Over time, it can take a toll on mental and physical health, leaving people feeling isolated, disconnected and increasingly cut off from the world around them.

Now, you might say it’s easy to find someone in today’s internet world. We’ve heard of people who have got married because of Facebook and other social media. But there are also horror stories of scams and people being trained to scam South Africans, both men and women.

At one stage, one of the single people I knew used a dating app, but complained that all it became was women getting a free dinner from him once a week, or however many times he went onto that dating app.

This is why I was interested in an interview with a woman, Janelie Kruger. She was interviewed on Saturday, November 14, 2026, during RSG’s Naweekaktueel broadcast in a segment titled “Klaar met afspraaktoepassings? Janelie Kruger vra haar vriende om Kupido te speel” (Done with dating apps? Janelie Kruger asks her friends to play Cupid).

A different approach to dating

Kruger, who is based in Cape Town, became frustrated with the horror stories associated with traditional dating apps and uncomfortable singles events.

She decided to try something different. In a Facebook post, she announced to her social network that she was single, tired of dating apps and would rather meet people through other people.

She asked friends and acquaintances to share her post, introduce her to suitable people and vouch for those they knew.

The experiment attracted considerable attention. One man, Theo van Schalkwyk, contacted her through Facebook. Discovering that they had a mutual friend, he immediately asked that friend, Jenny Loubser, to vouch for him.

Kruger had two conditions before agreeing to meet anyone: she wanted to be able to contact a mutual friend, and she wanted to meet the person within two weeks.

Jenny spoke favourably about both of them, and the couple subsequently went on their first date.

The relationship developed, and Kruger eventually announced that she was no longer single.

Her conclusion was particularly interesting: perhaps people don’t need better dating apps. Perhaps they need to become better at introducing people they know to one another.

That experiment provided the inspiration for Ek’s Single.

The idea is to move away from swiping through photographs of complete strangers and instead use existing social networks to bring people together.

Friends effectively become matchmakers. They can introduce single people they know to others in their own circles, providing a little more background and context than the usual dating-app encounter.

As Kruger explains in a Facebook announcement:

“We believe dating should be about ‘human connection’ again. Real people. Real conversations. And connections through people who already know each other.”

The app’s approach is summed up in its phrase: “Dating, vouched for.”

The developers are currently looking for their first testers to help refine the product. Kruger is inviting interested people to register their interest through her social media channels.

The concept is interesting because it attempts to address one of the biggest shortcomings of online dating: the difficulty of knowing who you are actually dealing with.

Of course, a mutual friend or acquaintance is no guarantee that someone is trustworthy. But having a connection between two people before they meet could provide a useful starting point.

The app is now moving into its testing phase, with Kruger announcing on Facebook that she and her team have built a platform that aims to bring human connection back into dating. They are looking for their first group of testers to try it out and help refine the product before a wider launch. The approach is based on meeting people through existing social networks, with a little more background and someone who can vouch for a prospective partner.

Kruger says places for the initial testers are limited, and those who participate can also look forward to some benefits in the future. Her invitation is straightforward: single people interested in trying the app can comment “TEST” on her Facebook announcement to receive a link.

An idea turned into a business opportunity

There is another aspect of this story that deserves attention.

It is always important, especially in a country like South Africa, for people to come up with new business ideas.

This business idea came from an experience where the woman herself was fed up with being single and devised a relatively safe way to get into the dating game.

It is a good example of how an everyday frustration can become the starting point for a business opportunity.

There are undoubtedly many South Africans who have ideas for mobile phone applications. Some will be simple, others considerably more ambitious. Some will find a market, while others will disappear after the initial enthusiasm has worn off.

It is difficult to find out how many people in 2026 have come up with any types of apps for cell phones in South Africa. A pity that we can’t get statistics like this.

There is no official or tracked national census or public database that records the exact number of individuals in South Africa who have launched mobile phone apps or how many of those apps are classified as “successful.”

While South Africa has a massive mobile-first population, with a reported over 82.7 million smartphone subscriptions and more than 33 million unique smartphone users, app developer statistics are fragmented across independent software houses, tech incubators and app stores such as Google Play and the Apple App Store rather than tracked by a single metric.

Developing an app is one thing. Finding users, getting them to return, generating revenue and building a sustainable business around it are quite another.

Kruger’s idea will now have to pass the test of real users. Will single people be comfortable allowing friends to play Cupid? Will the app attract enough people to make it useful? And can it establish the trust that its concept depends on?

These are questions that only time and the market will answer.

But there is something to be said for an entrepreneur who takes a personal frustration, comes up with a different approach and decides to turn it into a business.

You know, I was thinking about the power of advertising the other day.

You get these radio stations that call themselves community radio stations, but really they are commercial radio stations. And why do I say that? I recently drove past the offices of one of them and saw all manner of cars parked outside, including BMWs. It got me thinking.

These stations are always pleading poverty. They play heavily on the community angle: we’re local, we’re with you, we’re here for the community. They give the impression that they are some sort of charitable organisation or little NGO struggling to keep the doors open.

Meanwhile, they are running commercial operations, generating advertising revenue and, in some cases, creating rather comfortable positions for owners and people associated with the business.

There is nothing wrong with making money from advertising. But let’s not pretend that every organisation calling itself a community radio station is some sort of charitable enterprise.

Advertising is the big business here. And it is spreading into practically every available electronic medium.

Take YouTube. I was watching a business interview this morning featuring some bright young people. It was a programme I wanted to watch, but I was interrupted by seven or eight advertisements, both international and local, during the interview.

It was ridiculous. The advertisements were spoiling the viewing experience.

But the advertisers are there, and their media specialists are putting increasing amounts of money into YouTube because they believe it delivers results. The viewer may be irritated, but the advertising machine keeps rolling.

And this brings me to the big news this week: Microsoft.

I don’t know whether you use Microsoft products, but the disruption to its services was considerable. Outlook, Teams, Copilot and Exchange Online were among the services affected. Microsoft might prefer to describe what happened in less dramatic terms, but I would call it a technical disaster rather than a technical glitch.

For a company of Microsoft’s size and importance, an outage of this magnitude raises serious questions about the reliability of the systems on which millions of people and businesses depend.

Microsoft has apologised and said the disruption was not caused by a cyberattack. Its explanation points to a problem associated with an earlier network capacity upgrade that surfaced following a subsequent network change.

That’s a rather technical explanation, but the consequences were very real.

Millions of people were inconvenienced. Businesses were disrupted. People could not access their Outlook email, and users of Copilot and other services were affected.

I have written about Copilot this week, including Microsoft’s decision to remove its app from the iPhone 8 without providing a substitute for those users.

But let’s put the inconvenience to one side for a moment.

What about the advertisers?

Microsoft operates a substantial advertising business through its platforms, including Bing search and Microsoft Edge. Advertising also appears within some of its other services.

When these services are unavailable, what happens to the advertising money being spent on them?

Microsoft’s position is that its advertising systems were not directly affected by the outage. However, its own advertising representative acknowledged that there could have been a weakness in incoming advertising requests from Outlook users who could not access their inboxes.

In other words, the advertising machinery might have remained operational, but some of the people who were supposed to see the advertisements could not get into the system.

That raises an obvious question: if advertisers are paying to reach people through these platforms, what happens when the platforms are unavailable?

Will advertisers receive refunds?

I don’t know what individual advertising contracts provide, but Microsoft’s advertising terms appear to offer little comfort. Its documentation excludes credits for certain losses arising from system or tool downtime.

There are separate service-credit arrangements for qualifying Microsoft 365 business customers when service availability falls below specified levels. But these are credits against subscription charges, not compensation for advertising expenditure that may have produced no results.

There is an important distinction here. Microsoft may be able to demonstrate that its advertising delivery systems remained operational, but that doesn’t necessarily mean advertisers received the exposure they paid for.

And this is where the power of these enormous technology companies becomes increasingly uncomfortable.

Microsoft will get its systems back up and running. It will investigate the incident, issue its technical reports, reinforce its network infrastructure and carry on with business.

But what about the businesses that depend on its services? What about the advertisers who have committed money to its platforms? What about the millions of people who have no practical alternative when a major service suddenly becomes unavailable?

The legal agreements are generally written by the companies providing these services. They are enormously powerful organisations, and the customer has very little bargaining power when it comes to the terms and conditions.

The same questions arise with other large technology companies. We have become increasingly dependent on a relatively small number of businesses controlling the platforms through which we communicate, search for information, conduct business and advertise.

The problem isn’t confined to Microsoft.

We have also seen the consequences of computer system failures in the airline industry in the United States today, where technical problems have disrupted operations and grounded aircraft.

These are not minor inconveniences when they happen on a large scale. They affect businesses, livelihoods and the everyday lives of ordinary people.

Then there is Nvidia, the giant chipmaker at the centre of the artificial intelligence revolution. Its CEO, Jensen Huang, resigned this week following revelations about an affair with a Chinese businesswoman suspected by US intelligence of working for Beijing. The affair has raised serious national security questions, given Nvidia’s strategic importance in the global technology industry and the sensitivity of its advanced chips

There are three issues here that deserve considerably more attention.

First, the growing dominance of a handful of enormous internet and software companies. Second, the ongoing unreliability of the computer systems on which we have become so dependent. And third, the relentless expansion of advertising through the new electronic media.

The advertising industry is pouring money into these platforms, sometimes at the expense of the people who actually use them. The technology companies collect the revenue, while the customer, the viewer or the advertiser must live with the consequences when things go wrong.

I don’t think we have begun to appreciate just how much power these companies have acquired, or how vulnerable we have become by depending on them.

Sources:

https://searchengineland.com/microsoft-advertising-warns-outlook-outage-may-have-affected-advertiser-spend-502104

https://www.citizen.co.za/lifestyle/technology/microsoft-outage-hits-outlook-teams-copilot/

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

Engineer hiring is a strong indicator of economic activity. The figures on the number of engineers hired for AI and similar projects in the United States astounded me. The numbers have jumped because of the growth in AI in that country. So I thought I’d take a quick look at what’s happening with engineering positions in South Africa.

But the problem here is that the collection of data is not as good as in other countries. There’s scarce data. So if you asked even AI how many engineers — including mechanical, electrical and civil — were hired in South Africa in 2026, you’re not going to get a satisfactory answer at all. It’s not AI’s fault. It’s that this sort of data is not kept in South Africa. South Africa, unfortunately, lacks this sophistication.

Be that as it may, AI did a difficult job for me and picked out some information that gives an indication of engineering hiring in South Africa. The interesting conclusion — whatever the real numbers are — is that there are more positions for engineers than there are engineers to fill those positions. What a lovely environment for engineers, but what a sad environment for the economy. What’s the matter? I don’t know. Maybe not enough engineers are being trained. Maybe engineers are coming from outside. It’s difficult to determine.

For what it’s worth, the scraps of data point the same way. CESA has estimated a shortage of around 60,000 engineers, technicians and technologists. Xpatweb’s critical-skills work has found roughly 27–29% of employers saying they cannot find engineers locally. Pnet has signalled civil and structural engineering as high demand and low competition, electrical as medium, and mechanical, maintenance and industrial engineering as shortage areas.

Anyway, moving on from economics to politics. We don’t usually comment much on politics, except to say that this tear-throat who’s threatening all sorts of things against parties that won fairly and squarely is becoming a bit too much. This tear-throat is arrogant and is a hateful, vile person, and if politics could be rid of this person, it would be for the better. This is a person who brings this country down. The country does not need people like this — poor losers trying to force their way through everything. This is a person who alleges all these entrepreneurial roots and stuff like that, and is lauded in business, but when it comes down to it, it’s just a spiteful, hateful person that politics would be better rid of.

With that out of the way, the next and final item for this Friday is Microsoft. You know, I noticed something wrong with Microsoft this week, but I only use one of their legacy products. For an individual, you want to steer totally clear of Microsoft — that mighty Microsoft and its products — because you’re so overcharged, they chop and change at will, they don’t support old products, and they force you into situations. Look at the situation with Copilot. Users were happily using Copilot on their iPhone 8 phones, and suddenly overnight the app disappeared. They just blocked it and forgot about it. You’ve got to go upgrade to something new with a huge expense for a new iPhone. And this week Microsoft was down, and all sorts of things were down with it. As I say, I was using one of their legacy products and it wasn’t even working. So it’s one of those cases, isn’t it? The mighty often have flaws, and when you follow the mighty, you have problems with them. It’s strange that more people haven’t migrated to Google, because its environment — whether you’re doing word processing, graphs or text, voice to text, or image creation — has got it all, really. And their spreadsheets are fantastic, easier to use than Excel.

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

---

How much more do you need to earn next year just to stand still?

It’s a question people brush off. “Ah, yeah, it’s simple.” But it’s fundamental to your income. The problem is, if you’re standing still — if you don’t get a salary increase or find a way to make more money next year — you go backwards. Inflation doesn’t stand still, so neither can you.

Let’s use a simple example. Say someone earns R25,000 a month. If inflation runs at 10%, they need 10% more just to buy the same things next year.

· Monthly top-up needed: 10% × R25,000 = R2,500
· New monthly salary needed: R27,500
· Annual top-up needed: R2,500 × 12 = R30,000
· New annual salary needed: R300,000 ? R330,000

So in plain terms: to make up for 10% inflation, a R25,000-a-month earner needs R2,500 more per month, or R30,000 more per year.

Now, if you want to look at it through a financial lens, we can calculate the present value and future value of that extra money. Using the 10% inflation rate over one year:

· Present value today of the R30,000 you’ll need next year: R30,000 ÷ 1.10 = R27,272.73. In other words, the extra R30,000 needed next year is worth about R27,273 in today’s money.
· Future value in one year of R30,000 today: R30,000 × 1.10 = R33,000. If you had R30,000 today and it grew at 10%, it would become R33,000.

And if you don’t have savings? You really will go backwards. Because savings — even with interest rates only slightly higher — give you better value in the future for the money you’ve earned today. Without that buffer, inflation eats into your buying power and you have nothing to fall back on.

All of this reminds me of something I saw during the week: the government wants to introduce financial literacy in schools. It’s interesting that this is only being mooted now, in 2026. Can you believe it? I don’t know what they’re going to put in the curriculum, but whatever it is, I hope it’s good for children to understand money. And it seems there could be a real problem in this country regarding the youth and their understanding of money.

It’s also interesting that I did my schooling many decades ago, and it’s taken decades for the government to realise you need to know about money. School was always the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic. But times have changed. Personally, I always wished there was financial planning — or just an understanding of money, interest, debt, savings, stock markets. There’s a lot that goes into money. And all of this we had to learn after school, by the by, from friends, family, where we worked, newspapers. We didn’t have anybody at school telling us about money. It seemed the things we learned at school were disconnected from real life, and that’s a tragedy.

Some families were wealthy and taught their children about the use of money. The Bible has many wise instructions on money, but that would have been the select few who learned about money from their families. For the rest of us, we had to learn it on our own.

So what’s happening today? The data is stark. South Africa ranked lowest in financial literacy among 27 countries in a Remitly survey. The Financial Sector Conduct Authority found the financial literacy score has stayed stagnant at around 53% over the past decade. And a World Bank report highlighted that 65% of South African youth lack basic financial skills. That lack of knowledge translates into real damage: household debt-to-disposable income sits at 61.6%, more than half of adults spend over 40% of their take-home pay on debt, and only 24% actively plan for retirement.

The youth crisis makes it even more urgent. Youth unemployment is around 47.4% for ages 15–34 and near 60% for ages 15–24. Too many learners leave school without the skills to budget, save, or navigate formal work. That’s the preparation crisis.

So the 2026 move is not just a nice-to-have. In April 2026, National Treasury released a draft National Consumer Financial Education Policy for public comment, framing financial literacy as being as critical as reading and writing. Public support is overwhelming: 98.5% of South Africans surveyed said financial education should be mandatory for school children. And it’s being operationalised through the Economic and Management Sciences curriculum, where financial literacy now carries a 40% weighting for Grades 7–9.

In short, 2026 marks the moment the government acknowledged that financial illiteracy is a systemic economic barrier, not just an individual failing. It’s a preventative strategy to stop young people from repeating the debt and savings mistakes of previous generations, and to build a foundation for economic resilience and growth.

Because the truth is simple: if you don’t understand money, money will understand you — and it won’t be kind. Whether it’s R25,000 a month or any other figure, knowing what inflation does to your income, and what savings and interest can do for your future, is no longer optional. It’s basic survival.

---

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

Look, I’m no labour expert. In the old days you had guys like Steven Friedman who really could cover labour. But on the labour front it’s surprising how the joblessness just keeps on growing. And what was interesting in the latest figures is the number of domestic workers who’ve lost their jobs. This is a pity because those types of jobs provide income for the lower levels. But you know, there is the minimum wage, and that is preventing people keeping on domestic workers in this economy where house owners or householders have lost their jobs.

You see, I don’t know if my thinking is limited here, but the way I see it is that over the past three decades, there’s been a move towards elitist jobs. The elite have their jobs, and they’re extremely happy. Forget the rest. There are many rakesome people running the show. This means their ideologies count. So what you’ve got in South Africa is a limited number of public sector cushy jobs and then a limited number of private sector cushy jobs. This is what you call elitism. The broad majority, and there are a lot of people in this country, about 60 to 65 million people, they don’t score. They’re mainly out there on their own, some with government grants, but that’s all. A government grant doesn’t go far.

On the upside, getting away from elitism. Years ago, people were looked down upon if they were entrepreneurs, but nowadays everybody, well virtually everybody, except those in elitist positions, and that includes political positions, have to create jobs for themselves. In other words, they have to freelance. They have to create small businesses.

The elitist problem and the joblessness problem is so deeply entrenched in this country because of its lack of economic policy that unfortunately, and I hate to say this, there is little hope of things changing.

---

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

Recently, people have been telling me that business has gone quiet. I’m not quite sure why. Maybe it was the elections. Maybe it’s the period before the festive season. One of the business people is a security business owner who rigs fences and other security equipment in posh homes here in the Western Cape. The other is a landscaper, and she does posh homes in Bryanston and Northcliff and places like that.

When you speak to them, they’re not quite sure either. And this is all business people. They don’t watch the economic news and find out what’s going on. It’s their customer list that tells them. If that goes quiet and they don’t get calls and that sort of thing, then they get concerned. They speak to people in the industry, but they give them very much the same information that they are experiencing.

Anyway, the temptation is to tell business people when things have gone quiet, that old sales motivation: “Don’t stand there, do something.” And usually that “do something” means go out there and sell. Get out your Rolodex—although we don’t have Rolodexes anymore. Get out your contacts book. Get out your email addresses these days. Get onto your WhatsApp groups and fish around. That’s a sales approach, and a good one too. Only the strongest survive. Those that are like stunned mullets and waver around aren’t going to get the business. You have to be proactive.

Let’s take a dive into what the reasons for the quiet period are, and then the things that can be done.

Why does business go quiet? It’s not just “the vibe”

Your security guy and your landscaper are not imagining it. The silence they are experiencing is real, and it is the local, visible symptom of a national economy stuck in low gear. The temptation is to blame “the elections” or “December,” but the truth is a combination of seasonal rhythm and a very specific set of economic pressures hitting South Africa right now.

The seasonal pattern is real. In November, both businesses and consumers tighten their belts. Businesses hold off on new projects until the new year. Consumers focus on saving for the December holidays. For a landscaper, the spring rush is over, and discretionary spending tapers off. For a security installer, homeowners may delay non-urgent upgrades until January. This is a normal ebb and flow.

But this year, the seasonal quiet is being supercharged by a crisis of confidence. Business confidence is sitting at just 38 points on the RMB/BER index, a level that means 62% of firms are dissatisfied with conditions. Consumer confidence is at -13, and critically, confidence among high-income consumers—the exact people who own posh homes in the Western Cape and Bryanston—is described as “deeply negative”. When the wealthy feel poor, the first things they cut are the non-essentials: the garden redesign, the additional camera, the maintenance contract upgrade.

The money is more expensive. The Reserve Bank has raised interest rates twice since May, taking the prime rate to 10.75%. The economy actually contracted by 0.2% in the second quarter, and Treasury has cut its 2026 growth forecast to just 1.2%. When rates are high, the money that would have gone to a landscaper or a security firm goes to the bank instead.

The elections have created a paralysis, not a bounce. The local government elections have come and gone, but they have left hung councils in key economic hubs like Johannesburg and Tshwane. Business Leadership SA has warned that political instability in metros undermines investor confidence and forces businesses to spend money providing services municipalities should deliver. For a small business owner in Randburg, that means clients are in “wait-and-see” mode. They are not making decisions until the political smoke clears.

And then there is the simple exhaustion of the year. By November, people are tired. They are planning for December. They are holding cash. The “reason to buy now” has to be stronger than the “reason to wait until January.”

So what do you actually do?

The temptation is to panic. The temptation is to discount. The temptation is to sit by the phone. The businesses that come out of a quiet period strongest do three things: they diagnose what is actually missing, they protect their cash, and they deliberately create sales activity instead of waiting for it.

First, diagnose before you panic. Is the quiet in leads, quotes, conversion, or cash collection? If your security guy has plenty of quotes out but nobody is signing, the problem is follow-up and urgency, not lead generation. If your landscaper has no new enquiries at all, the problem is visibility. Compare this November to last November. Assume caution. Plan for a slow December and use November to book January work.

Protect your cash first. Chase debtors hard and politely. Invoice immediately. Delay non-essential spending, but do not kill your marketing completely. Renegotiate fixed costs. Avoid panic discounting—discount only in exchange for cash upfront, a longer contract, or bulk work. The goal is to survive the quiet, not to win a race to the bottom.

Sell to the people who already know you. This is the fastest sales source in a quiet period. Call every past client from the last 18 to 24 months. Not to sell—to check in. Ask how they are, then offer something relevant. For the security guy: “We’re doing holiday-season security checks for existing clients. Would you like us to come and test the system before you go away?” For the landscaper: “We’re booking year-end clean-ups and irrigation checks before the heat hits. Shall I put you down for the first week of December?” Follow up every quote from the last 6 to 12 months. Ask: “Is this still on your radar for this year, or should I diarise it for January?”

Give people a reason to buy now. “Please buy” is not a reason. A specific, seasonal, easy-to-say-yes offer is. For security: festive-season cover, camera health checks, risk audits for estates, compliance upgrades. For landscaping: maintenance contracts rather than once-off projects, corporate year-end clean-ups, water-wise upgrades, pre-sale curb appeal. Make it easy: give three clear options—essential, recommended, premium. Quote the same day. Ask for the decision and the deposit.

Ask for referrals. Your satisfied clients know other people with posh homes and security systems and gardens. Ask them. “Who else do you know who needs this before December?” Estate agents, managing agents, body corporates, facility managers, and insurers are all referral partners who are also feeling the quiet and looking for reliable people to recommend.

Run a disciplined sales rhythm. A salesperson in a quiet period manages inputs, not moods. Twenty proactive contacts a day. Five follow-ups on old quotes. Two meetings or site visits. One new proposal. One referral request. At the end of the week, review the pipeline: who has a next step, and when? Ask every prospect: “What would make this a yes this month?”

Book January now. The quietest December is the one where you did nothing in November to fill January. Offer a small deposit to secure January work. Tell clients: “I’m booking my January diary now. If you want the first slot, let’s lock it in.” It gives them a reason to decide and gives you a reason to stop worrying about December.

The 30-day quiet-period plan

Week 1: List every past client, every old quote, and every referral partner. Call the top twenty. Not to sell. To reconnect.

Week 2: Launch one specific seasonal offer. Security checks. Year-end clean-ups. Maintenance plans. Ask every happy client for one referral.

Week 3: Outbound to target segments. Estates. Managing agents. SMEs. Corporates. People who are also feeling the quiet and need a reliable supplier.

Week 4: Follow up everything. Review the numbers. Book January work with a deposit.

The quiet is real. The reasons are real. But the response does not have to be paralysis. Don’t stand there. Do something. And make sure that something is specific, proactive, and pointed at the people who already trust you.

---

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

There is a growing tendency among companies to talk about artificial intelligence as a wonderful opportunity to cut costs, improve productivity and reduce headcounts.

The big banks seem particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of replacing employees with AI. The fewer people on the payroll, the better the numbers apparently look.

But there is another way of looking at the AI revolution.

Take IKEA, the international furniture retailer. When AI began handling routine customer enquiries, the company faced a choice. It could simply get rid of people whose jobs were being automated. Instead, it retrained thousands of call-centre employees to become interior design advisers and take on more specialised customer-facing roles.

Other companies, including Amazon, Salesforce and Zoho, have also invested in employee training and redeployment as AI changes the nature of work. The approaches differ, but the underlying idea is that employees can develop new skills and move into jobs where human judgement, experience and customer relationships still matter.

Of course, retraining isn’t always easy. Not every employee will be suited to a different role, and not every company will have opportunities available.

But surely companies that have invested years in developing their employees should be looking at ways to retain that experience rather than simply showing people the door.

AI can make companies more productive and profitable. Nobody seriously disputes that.

The question is whether those gains should come entirely at the expense of the people who helped build the business.

A good company doesn’t just ask how many jobs AI can eliminate. It asks how many people it can help move forward.

---

# Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

Medical aid premiums are taking an increasingly large bite out of household budgets. For many people, the annual increase has become something they dread rather than simply accept as another cost of living.

The problem is that healthcare costs are not going away. Nor is the need for adequate medical cover. But with premiums continuing to put pressure on household finances, people are increasingly having to ask themselves whether they can afford to maintain their existing medical aid and gap cover.

Some are looking at cheaper options. Others are considering reducing their cover or dropping certain benefits altogether.

But how do you review your medical aid and gap cover without leaving yourself exposed when you need medical treatment?

It is not simply a matter of comparing premiums and choosing the cheapest option. Every medical scheme has different benefits, restrictions, networks and conditions. Moving to a cheaper plan can mean giving up benefits that you might only discover you need when faced with a medical emergency.

When should you review your cover?

The annual review period towards the end of the year is a good time to examine your medical aid and gap cover arrangements.

Medical schemes announce their premium increases and changes to benefits for the coming year, giving members an opportunity to assess whether their existing arrangements still make financial sense.

Don’t wait until the last minute. Give yourself enough time to examine the alternatives, ask questions and understand what you might be giving up before making a decision.

Start with what you actually use

A sensible review begins with looking at your healthcare expenses over the past 12 months.

Examine your claims history. How often have you visited a GP? Have you needed specialist consultations? What have you spent on chronic medication? Have there been hospital admissions or other significant medical expenses?

This information can help you understand which benefits matter most to you.

It is easy to pay for a comprehensive package without knowing exactly which benefits you use. Equally, it is easy to underestimate the importance of certain benefits simply because you haven’t needed them recently.

Your medical aid should reflect your actual circumstances, but it should also provide reasonable protection against unexpected medical expenses.

Examine the changes to your existing plan

Before looking elsewhere, find out exactly what your current medical scheme is changing.

There are several things worth examining:

• How much will your monthly premium increase?

• Are your day-to-day benefits changing?

• What happens to your medical savings allocation?

• Are there changes to hospital networks?

• Are your preferred doctors and specialists still accessible under your plan?

• Have co-payments, exclusions or other restrictions changed?

Don’t assume that because you are staying with the same medical scheme, you will receive exactly the same benefits next year.

Read the new benefit guide carefully. If something is unclear, ask your broker or medical scheme to explain it.

Consider your changing healthcare needs

Your medical requirements can change considerably over time.

You may have acquired a chronic condition, started taking regular medication or found yourself needing more frequent consultations with specialists.

Family circumstances also change. You may have added dependants or have children who are no longer financially dependent on you.

The plan that made sense several years ago might no longer be appropriate.

This is particularly important for people approaching or already in retirement. When income becomes more constrained, medical aid premiums can become one of the largest items in the monthly budget.

Reducing the premium might seem attractive, but the consequences need to be carefully considered.

Review medical aid and gap cover together

This is one of the most important parts of the exercise.

Medical aid and gap cover perform different functions, but they should be considered together when reviewing your healthcare protection.

Medical aid provides the underlying cover, subject to the benefits, rules and conditions of your chosen plan. Gap cover is designed to assist with certain qualifying shortfalls between what medical schemes pay and what healthcare professionals charge.

If you change your medical aid plan, you should examine whether your existing gap cover remains appropriate.

A cheaper medical aid option might have different co-payments, limits and restrictions. You need to understand how these interact with the benefits provided by your gap cover.

Equally, moving to a more comprehensive medical aid plan does not necessarily mean that you should automatically retain exactly the same gap cover arrangements.

Examine what each policy actually covers and where the benefits overlap.

Remember that gap cover is not a substitute for medical aid. It cannot simply be relied upon to pay for treatments or services excluded by your medical scheme.

When comparing medical aid and gap cover options, the monthly premium is obviously important. But it is only one part of the equation.

A cheaper plan may look attractive until you examine the limitations.

Consider the following:

• Hospital cover: What level of hospital treatment is covered, and under what conditions?

• Hospital networks: Are you restricted to particular hospitals or healthcare providers?

• Co-payments: What additional amounts might you have to pay for certain procedures?

• Specialist fees: How are specialists’ charges covered?

• Chronic medication: What conditions and medications are covered?

• Gap cover limits: What are the maximum amounts payable, and are there restrictions on particular claims?

• Waiting periods: Are there waiting periods or exclusions that could affect your ability to claim?

Ask for the relevant policy documents rather than relying on a sales presentation or a comparison table.

The downscaling dilemma

For many households, the uncomfortable reality is that existing medical aid arrangements are becoming increasingly difficult to afford.

Moving to a cheaper plan may be necessary, but it should not be an impulsive decision.

The temptation is to look at the monthly saving and regard it as money back in your pocket. But what happens when you need an operation, specialist treatment or hospital admission?

You could find yourself facing additional expenses that wipe out much of the saving you made on premiums.

The objective should be to find the most affordable combination of medical aid and gap cover that still provides an acceptable level of protection.

That requires looking beyond the headline premium and examining the details of the benefits and limitations.

Get independent advice

Medical aid and gap cover products can be complicated. Comparing one scheme against another is not always straightforward, particularly when the benefits and exclusions differ.

An independent broker can help you examine the alternatives, explain the differences and identify potential gaps in your cover.

Ask questions. Get comparisons in writing. Make sure you understand what you are gaining and what you are losing before signing up for a different arrangement.

Ultimately, the decision comes down to balancing affordability against the financial risks of inadequate medical cover.

Medical aid should not be something you simply renew every year without examining the cost and benefits.

With healthcare expenses putting increasing pressure on household budgets, an annual review has become an important part of managing personal finances.

The challenge is to reduce unnecessary costs without sacrificing protection that could prove invaluable when you need it most.

---

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

As a former Randburg resident of more than 40 years, I was interested to read an article in the Randburg Sun about residents of Strydom Park obtaining permission to fence off a previously pristine greenbelt because of the growing influx of vagrants.

Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo has granted the Strydom Park Ratepayers Association permission to fence the greenbelt along the Fabriek Street side.

I know the problem well. Where I previously lived, alongside the Braamfontein Spruit, vagrants increasingly occupied sections of the surrounding greenbelts. Makeshift shelters appeared, fires were lit, washing was hung from Eskom power line towers, and rubbish accumulated. Drug and alcohol abuse, noise and antisocial behaviour became part of the problem. What were once attractive green spaces became unpleasant and sometimes unsafe places to visit.

Nobody seems to have a definitive explanation for the influx. Economic circumstances may be a factor, as may the availability of relatively undisturbed spaces in suburban areas. Whatever the reasons, the consequences for residents are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Anyone familiar with the False Bay coastline, from Muizenberg through Kalk Bay and Fish Hoek to Simon’s Town, will know that vagrancy and pollution are hardly unfamiliar problems.

Take Kalk Bay. Walk along the coastline, on the seaside of the railway line, and you will find people living there permanently in makeshift shelters, often surrounded by rubbish. Drug and alcohol abuse, theft and other antisocial behaviour are also part of the broader problem.

The situation is compounded by litter thrown by passers-by and motorists. The PRASA railway reserve is another dumping ground, with little evidence of regular cleaning or maintenance.

Now imagine extending this environment along another stretch of coastline.There is a proposal to extend the coastal walkway from St James towards Clovelly. On the face of it, a coastal walkway sounds fine. Who wouldn’t enjoy walking along this beautiful stretch of coastline?

But what are the likely consequences? What happens to the natural environment, the existing community and the character of Clovelly? What about vagrancy, drug and alcohol abuse, littering, illegal dumping and crime?

The Muizenberg to St James coastal route, often called the Muizenberg Catwalk, was once a beautiful place to walk and enjoy the coastline. Today, it has acquired a rather different reputation. There are persistent reports of muggings, robberies and cellphone thefts. The advice from locals is generally to walk in groups, avoid quieter periods and be particularly careful about carrying valuables.

I once ventured along this route at around dusk. I encountered some criminal-looking scum and got out of there fast and haven’t been back. If you want to walk there, choose your time carefully and go with other people.

Then there is the Fish Hoek Catwalk (Jager’s Walk), which used to be another tranquil and attractive coastal route. It, too, has become notorious for opportunistic crime. There have been numerous reports of muggings, cellphone snatching and thefts. Much of this activity goes unreported, but local residents know the risks. Drug-related activity and antisocial behaviour add to the concerns. Walking alone is dangerous.

Who will maintain the walkway? Who will deal with littering, illegal dumping and makeshift settlements? Who will address drug and alcohol abuse, antisocial behaviour and crime? Who will provide security? Who will protect the natural environment?

We should be protecting our natural coastline, not creating another potential haven for vagrancy, drug abuse, pollution and criminal activity.

---

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

For many South Africans, medical aid and medical insurance have become the single biggest expense in their monthly household budgets. Bigger than rates and taxes. Far bigger than electricity. More than petrol, and often considerably more than all their other insurance premiums combined.

The costs have simply grown out of all proportion.

And then, just to rub salt into the wound, you see the fat-cat CEOs of some of these medical companies earning R20 million or more a year, bragging on social media and in business publications about how well their companies are performing. One wonders whether they have any idea what their customers are going through. It’s enough to make you sick. Although, given what medical treatment costs these days, perhaps that’s not a good idea.

There are reasons why medical costs have climbed so dramatically in South Africa. One of the biggest is the deterioration of the public healthcare system over the past 30 years. Public hospitals have deteriorated, some facilities have closed, and the infrastructure investment needed to keep pace with a growing population has simply not happened on anything like the scale required.

The consequences are felt by everyone, not just those who depend on public hospitals.

When the public healthcare system struggles to cope, more people who can afford it turn to private healthcare. The demand for private hospital beds, specialists, doctors and other medical services increases. And so do the costs. Those costs are ultimately passed on to medical aid members and insurance policyholders.

But spare a thought for those who cannot afford medical aid at all.

Visit a public hospital and you will quickly understand the problem. The queues are enormous, the facilities are overcrowded and the pressure on medical staff is immense.

Imagine being an 80-year-old woman who has broken her arm and having to sit for hours waiting to be seen. Or a child who has broken an ankle playing football on the beach. Or someone who has suffered a stroke and needs urgent attention.

There are reports of people waiting five or six hours, sometimes longer, before receiving attention. In an overstretched emergency department, patients may be triaged according to how seriously ill they appear to be. If your vital signs are stable, you may find yourself waiting while more critical cases are dealt with.

But imagine the anxiety of sitting there, not knowing when somebody will attend to you.

That is the reality facing many South Africans who have no alternative.

And it raises another question. What happens to those of us who are still managing to pay medical aid premiums today but are increasingly wondering how much longer we can afford to do so?

Take what you are paying now and project those increases over the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. The figures are frightening. What will medical aid cost by then? Will you still be able to afford it? And if you can’t, what exactly are your options?

There is a rather grim irony here. You might spend your working life paying medical aid contributions, only to reach retirement age when you need healthcare most and discover that the premiums have become unaffordable.

You might not even be around to worry about the problem twenty years from now. Not because you have lived a particularly long and happy life, but because you couldn’t afford the healthcare needed to keep you going.

The government has been talking about National Health Insurance for years. But there is very little public confidence that it will solve the problem. Many South Africans simply don’t trust the government to manage such an enormous undertaking. They fear that what is presented as a solution to the country’s healthcare crisis could become another enormous bureaucratic structure, with political appointments, questionable procurement and opportunities for well-connected individuals to enrich themselves.

There are also those who argue that our public hospitals could function perfectly well if only more money were allocated to them. Perhaps. But throwing more money at a system where accountability is weak, procurement is questionable and funds don’t always reach the facilities that need them is hardly a solution.

The question is not simply how much money we spend on healthcare. It is how much of that money actually reaches the people who need it.

So what are South Africans doing?

Essentially, there are three groups.

First, there are those who can afford pretty much anything. They have the money to pay for comprehensive medical aid, private specialists and whatever treatment they need. For them, the escalating cost of healthcare is an inconvenience rather than a financial crisis.

Then there is a growing group of people trying to find a compromise. They are looking at hybrid arrangements, using private medical cover to protect themselves against major and expensive medical events such as cancer, heart attacks, strokes and other serious illnesses, while relying on public healthcare facilities for more routine treatment.

Some are also looking at entry-level hospital plans, rather than comprehensive medical aid, to protect themselves against the potentially devastating cost of private hospitalisation.

Finally, there are millions of South Africans who have no choice. They rely entirely on the public healthcare system, whether they like it or not.

For households under financial pressure, a more practical approach may be to use public clinics and affordable nurse-led healthcare facilities for routine medical needs, while retaining some form of hospital cover if the budget allows.

It isn’t an ideal solution. Far from it. And anyone considering this route needs to understand exactly what their policy covers, particularly when it comes to chronic conditions, specialist treatment, emergencies and serious illnesses. A hospital plan is not necessarily a substitute for comprehensive medical aid, and medical insurance policies can have very different exclusions and limitations.

But the reality is that people are having to make these choices because they simply cannot afford to keep paying ever-increasing premiums.

We have reached a point where staying healthy is becoming a luxury.

This is a damning indictment of the state of healthcare in South Africa.

---

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.