After starting a war that has become a plague, which will likely last decades, and leaving the economy in shambles, I never thought I would feel complimentary toward President George W. Bush. But watch this CNN interview with Jeb Bush and see if you agree.

In the interview with Jeb Bush, he says 5 or 6 times that “we need a strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism.”

When asked what the strategy should be, he lists a bunch of tactics including enforce a no-fly zone, give aid to the Assad opposition, etc. He never suggests a strategy.

The interviewer eventually shows a speech by former Governor George W. Bush in which he says, “The face of terrorism is not the true face of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”

Therein lies a strategy. If you can position terrorists as not being Islam and acknowledge Islam as one of the world’s great religions, you can (1) put terrorists on the defensive in their cultural and social campaign; (2) rally the Islam world in showing support for their religion; (3) stand more chance of gaining support from Islamic political and religious leaders that we all need to fight against terrorism.

President Bush’s problem was that he chose the wrong tactics to pursue the strategy and that brought disastrous consequences. You can’t say you’re one thing and then, go out and act like another.  When he got his MBA, he must have passed the strategy course and flunked the one on implementation.

The next question to Governor Jeb Bush after showing his brother’s statements was “Is Islam peace, Governor?”

To which he responds, “You know what? I know what Islamic terrorism is and that’s what we are fighting in ISIS, Al Qaeda and all the other groups and that’s what our focus should be on.”

In this response, he first equates Islam with terrorism, which, if a strategy, is self-defeating as there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. That’s almost one-quarter of the world’s population. If you’re going to go out of your way to offend a religion, pick the Wiccans. I don’t know what they believe but they’re only 134,000 of them. (That’s up from 8,000 in 1990 so maybe we should be looking into their affairs.)

I think the lesson here is that if you’re going to run for President, don’t assume everyone you’re talking to is an idiot. Some of us understand that tactics without strategy is like running in circles. You might make a lot of noise, but you’ll never reach your objective.

Tags: Al Qaeda, Assumptions, CNN, George W. Bush, ISIS, Islam, Jeb Bush, Leadership, MBA, Media, Muslims, no-fly zone, Outcomes, Politicians, Republicans, Situation Analysis, Strategy, Tactics, Terrorism, Winning

Everybody knows Christmas can be a challenging time.  Gifts, parties, family, travel, decorations, cards all can present vexing problems to solve every year.  For me, an appropriate card is probably the toughest thing I face.  Every year, my friend George and I develop a cartoon to use as our card and it’s not easy.

You see on the side, we’re cartoonists or I should say a cartoon team.  George draws and I write except when he draws and write or I change his drawings with photoshop and write or he draws and his wife writes or my wife and kids make suggestions.  But however it’s done, we come up with a collaborative effort every year that goes on our website GigundoIndustries.com

No doubt you’ve heard of Gigundo Industries, the largest, non-existent, virtual company in the world.  If not, you better visit the website as soon as possible for there are hundreds of cartoons there for you to peruse and even buy.

In a way, creating cartoons is similar to writing strategy.  You take a complex set of facts and distill them down into something simple that cuts through the clutter.  Only with cartoons, you place that simple statement in an unusual setting such as a psychiatrist’s office, caveman times, a prison, the North Pole or Santa’s workshop.

There was so much news this year that was fodder for our a year-end card.  Off course, most prominent and recent in our minds was the malfunctioning of healthcare.gov and that led to an idea that really didn’t require any drawing at all.

But we quickly nixed that idea because who could possibly make jokes about their government failing at something, let alone Santa?  I mean nobody wants the government to fail. Right? Yeah, right.

So then we moved on to the saga and embarrassment of Edward Snowden and the NSA snooping and came up with this:

But not exactly an uplifting story and we were looking for something more upbeat.  So we moved on to a couple of positive stories.  First, the extraordinary first-ever resignation of a Pope got us wondering if that could ever happen to Santa.

Then came the idea that the battle for gay marriage might even have reached the North Pole.  (No, this is not for you people at Fox News who think gay marriage may as well allow us to marry a goat.  Who’d marry a goat anyway?)

We just weren’t satisfied yet and then read the news that “Selfie” was the word of the year and would enter the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary.  Santa can get in on that too.

Finally, we hit upon it, an idea that would really take us into the future but have that bit of mixed message that might cause us to wonder whether things are as they should be.  2013 also became the year of the drone, for both reasons that frighten us and, thanks to Amazon.com, frighten us.  Just think if Santa employed some new technology.

That’s our holiday collection for 2013.  They’ll all go up on our site at GigundoIndustries.com soon.  Let me know which you like best.  Now, it’s back to my day job.  Everyone at Futureshift and GigundoIndustries.com wishes you the best of Christmas holidays and a great 2014.

Tags: 2014, Amazon, Assumptions, Christmas, Corporate Myopia, Creativity, Democrats, Drone, Edward Snowden, first Selfie, Fox News, futureshift, gay marriage, GigundoIndustries.com, government failure, Governments, Healthcare.gov, Media, new Pope, New Year, NSA, old Pope, Outcomes, Pope, Santa, Selfie, Situation Analysis, snooping, Strategy, The Guardian, Virtual Company

After Friday’s mass killing of 20 young children, ages 6 and 7, which follows so many other mass killings in recent years, it’s time we all read and thought about the 2^nd amendment to the Contstitution upon which this nation is founded.  The amendment calls for:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Keep in mind that this amendment was written and adopted in 1791.  George Washington was still in his first term as president then.  It had only been eight years since the end of the American Revolution, although we were in the midst of the Northwest Indian War, taking place in what today, we know as the Industrial Midwest – Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.  Vermont had recently become the 14^th state.

To say the United States was a very different place than it is today is an enormous understatement.  The country’s population then was a little more than 4 million, nearly 1/80^th of what it is today.  The inventions of the American Industrial Revolution were still 40 years away.  The Colt 45 Revolver wasn’t invented and didn’t see use for another 80 years.  The firearm of choice in 1791 was a single-shot muzzle loaded rifle.

While we can certainly say that the framers of the Constitution were wise and prescient men, it would be fantasy to think that they envisioned a world where anyone on the street could buy an automatic or semi-automatic gun with incredible firepower and large self-loading magazines…and that’s where we are today.

We have an amendment to our Constitution that has been sanctified as a bedrock right for any responsible or irresponsible person regardless of their intent to carry a gun of virtually any type on the street, into schools or even places of worship.

Now in 1791, it’s likely that you could carry your rifle with you almost anywhere you went.  Of course, then you might need it to scare off an attacking bear, bring home dinner or keep your scalp if in the midst of a territorial Indian war.  There was also the need to assure the populace that a militia could be formed at any time to ward of an attacking nation or people.  Today, we have what is known as armed forces and police to handle that responsibility.

Hunting, of course, is an American tradition and virtually all hunters, the possible exception being former Vice President Cheney, are well-trained and responsible gun owners.

So why the need for weapons that can so easily kill dozens of people in only a few seconds?  Why is this right so sacrosanct in the United States today?  The chief lord and high protector of gun-of-any-type ownership rights is the National Rifle Association, popularly known as the NRA.  Their website is nra.org.  You should visit it so you’re familiar with the people that are protecting our Constitution and intimidating our politicians.

One section of the NRA website is called “NRA Opponents”.  Here’s who is listed there:

• Animal rights activists
• Anti-gun politicos
• Brady campaign (instituting background checks for gun ownership)
• Clinton gun ban (and more specifically, anyone with the name “Clinton”)
• International Action Network on Small Arms (a global movement against gun violence)
• Mayors Against Illegal Guns (with a photo of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg to symbolize the arch-villain)
• Obama Administration (you can guess which Marxist-Leninist, Kenyan-born traitor is pictured there)

The NRA has 4.3 million members and revenues of $205 million.  Yet, with this relatively small membership and revenue base, it has intimidated politicians of both political parties into subservience and fear of even having a discussion about gun ownership rights and laws to regulate them.  It has become an efficient political machine and advocate of gun ownership.  Today, there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people.  One-third of them are hand-guns and it’s estimated that another 20% are semi-automatic firearms.

It’s often said that we get the government and country we deserve.  If we tune out of politics and get politicians that create laws we don’t like, then we shouldn’t elect them.  I can accept that.  But I can’t accept that anybody deserves to be shot or have their loved ones shot and killed and nor should any civilized society allow this.

The NRA and its defenders who want to forestall any discussion about guns have already been saying we shouldn’t politicize this tragedy.  That’s exactly what we should do.  Even today, the 31 senators who are strong supporters of no restrictions on gun ownership refused to go on any of the Sunday morning talk shows.  Not a single one of them had the courage to stand up for their heinous beliefs.  This tragedy and others like it should cause us to take a stand like so many tragedies of the past.  Which side of the fence are you are on?  Are you for semi-automatic gun ownership or against it?  Are you for background checks and waiting periods or against them?  Are you for mass murders or against them?  These are not difficult questions to answer.

As perverse as it may sound, I’ve come to believe that these acts of murder are what the NRA wants, that they are anarchists at heart and their depravity guides them to thinking more murders equals more guns equals more support for their other political goals.  Does that sound extreme?  Maybe, but it’s less extreme than holding up rights for any clown to own weapons that can used to kill young children who only want to enjoy their school day.

Of course, we can do the usual and express our views to our friends and families and we can grieve with the victims who have lost their loved ones.  However, nothing happens in this country unless the majority speaks up and pressures their elected officials, the cowards that most of them are, to act and to do so now, to stop equivocating, to end their “cautious calls for action” and to do something real to end these horrid acts now.  So write, call and email your Congressional representatives and your town officials today.  Don’t straddle the fence or advise caution.  Get angry, politicize and demand action today.

Tags: 1791, American Industrial Revolution, American Revolution, Americans, animal rights activists, anti-gun politicos, automatic weapons, Change, Clinton gun-ban, Communities, Corporate Myopia, Crazy people, Democrats, George Washinton, Governments, hunting, Individualists, International Action Network on Small Arms, Leadership, mass killing, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Media, Michael Bloomberg, Militia, Mistakes, National Rifle Association, Northwest Indian War, NRA, nra.org, Outcomes, Politicians, President Obama, second amendment, semi-automatic guns, U.S. Constitution

It’s “silly season” – so sayeth the politicians.  It’s time to throw every piece of mud at the opposition simply because a lot of people will believe it.  Fox, MSNBC, pundits who claim to know everything but in reality know nothing, and thousands of horrid political ads – it’s all a lot of noise that provides no reliable indicators on which is the best way to vote.

Can we look at some of the realities of the situation and some of the facts?

REALITIES:

• Romney:
  • We don’t know what Romney would or would not do. Unfortunately, he’s changed positions so many times, it’s hard to figure whether he’s conservative or moderate.  The “etch a sketch” metaphor has been mentioned and fair or not, it was created by his own campaign manager.
  • Yes, he did a great job with the Olympics.  He had support and money from the government that he says isn’t working.  It’s unclear how he did as governor of Massachusetts but one would think that if he did a great job, he’d easily win the state this time.  Polls show he’s 15 points down.  You want to tell me that’s meaningless?  Please explain.
  • The only thing Romney has been consistent about is that he is a social conservative.  He’s supported the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade, favors DOMA and won’t take a position on the Lily Ledbetter Act.  If that’s what you want and you’re okay with his other murkiness, you should vote for him.

• Obama:
  • Four years ago, we were headed toward a full-on depression.  We’re not now.
  • Corporate profits had risen more than with any other president.
  • The stock market has risen 14.7% a year under Obama.
  • Housing values had fallen one-third on average at the end of the Bush administration.  They’re rising again and have recovered much of the loss.

Now that we’re here, who can take us further?

FACTS:

• The U.S. economy has done better with Democratic presidents than with Republicans.
• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents.
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents.
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year).
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end).
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents.
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

Don’t believe me?  Why not read the self-proclaimed “Capitalist Tool”?  The above facts can be found all over the Internet but click here to read this article from Forbes magazine.

Investment managers always point out that there’s no guarantee that past performance is an indicator of the future but given the choice between uncertainty and past negative performance versus a record and past positive performance, logic should say to select the latter.  But when did logic and facts determine a U.S. presidential election?

Tags: Americans, Assumptions, Bush, Capitalist Tool, Corporate profits, Democrats, Democrats and business, Depression, DOMA, Etch a Sketch, Forbes magazine, Fox News, futureshift, GDP growth, Governments, Great Depression, Great Recession, Housing, Journalists, Leadership, Lily Ledbetter, Massachusetts, Media, Media responsibility, Mitt Romney, MSNBC, National Debt, Olympics, Outcomes, Personal income, Politicians, Polls, President Obama, Republicans, Republicans and business, Roe v. Wade, Silly Season, Situation Analysis, Stock Market, U.S. Marketplace, Winning

This is the sixth in a series on Mistakes Countries Make and How They Can Get It Right

We just began work for a client in our 18^th country.  While that’s only 7% of all the countries in the world, they add up to over 30% of the top 50 countries in GDP.  That’s not a bad sample from which to draw some conclusions about foreign businesses that are marketing products in the U.S.  We’ve noticed a number of mistakes and major assumptions that seem to be common among all of the countries that our clients have come from.

One I’ve increasingly noticed is the assumption that Americans are waiting for foreign products with bated breath.

It’s always struck me as unusual that foreign marketers often think that just their presence in this country will create demand.  Yet, I’ve been stymied for an explanation as to why this is the case.  I think I’ve finally hit on it.

For decades, people in foreign countries have looked up at the U.S. as the bastion of top brands, particularly among consumers.  American brands have become a badge for people to show that they travel and have sophisticated and Western tastes.  This says nothing about whether they like the U.S. or about their sentiments on American government policies or even whether, more recently, the glow of American brands is wearing off.  It’s history.

From the time of the Cold War when a pair of Levis could buy you a hotel and meal in Russia to today when Nike shoes can be found on the feet of people in countries around the world, Coca-Cola at their tables and McDonalds around every corner, American brands have had a pretty good track record of coming into a foreign country and quickly generating sales.  True, there have been monumental mistakes like GM trying to sell the Chevy Nova in Latin America, but for the most part, U.S. brands have meant sales.

So, it might stand to reason to someone from outside the U.S. to ask if they buy our brands just because we’re there, won’t we buy their’s just because they’re here?  Foreign marketers often miss two key facts about the U.S. that can cause their sales efforts to fail:

1.  We’re internally focused.

The U.S. is a big country, no secret there (take a look at the maps in an earlier post, “Mistake #5:  Size Matters”) The point is that most Americans don’t think about the rest of the world.  With the exception of only two countries, Canada and Mexico, we don’t have countries next to us, just more Americans.  Many Americans don’t read the newspaper or watch the news on TV and if they do, it is often likely to be local news or something specific to their interest or vocation.  Products from countries like Chile, South Africa, Greece, Vietnam, even those that are successful,  just don’t have top-of-mind awareness here.  (A rude awakening has been coming to many American companies as they find American cachet diminishing, which means more hard work for us to sell abroad.)

A by-product of internal focus is the notion of “American exceptionalism”.  Personally, I find this to be both arrogant and naïve on the part of Americans but it has been aggressively promulgated by one of our political parties, and is associated with blind religious faith that promotes a strong belief that God has chosen America to lead the world.  What many Americans forget is that Irving Berlin wrote “God Bless America” as a musical prayer to God to please bless us and this has been turned around so that many people believe it to imply that God does bless America at the exclusion of others.

The U.S. State Department recently announced that more than one-third of Americans now hold a passport.  Approximately two-thirds of those have traveled abroad.  Whichever number you pick, it means that the vast majority of Americans have never been out of this country.  Many of them operate on old beliefs about life elsewhere and simply don’t know how strong the middle class is and how good life can be in other countries.  Many of the cheerleaders for American exceptionalism condemn “European socialism” in the same sentence without noting that most Europeans pay far less for health care and education and take more vacation time off from work.

2.  We’re less well educated

This is closely related to point number one but consider these facts:

• The U.S. ranks 33^rd in student reading performance; 27^th in math; and, 22^nd in science. (OECD Education at a Glance, 2009)
• The ratio of teachers to students in the U.S. is just below average in pre-primary education when compared to other developed countries; also just below average in post-high school education.  We do rank slightly above average at the lower and secondary education levels. (OECD, 2005)
• We rank 9^th in national IQ scores but 21 other countries including Mongolia, Estonia and Poland.  (We can take pride in tying Latvia and just narrowly beating out Belarus, Malta and the Ukraine.) (Lynn/VAnhanen Study)
• The U.S. ranks 27^th in gender equality, a key sign of both education and modernity. (WEF, 2008)
• In the recent WEF 2011/2012 rankings, the U.S. finds itself 13^th in higher education and training, 20^th in technological readiness, 10^th in business sophistication, and 26^th in overall education,
• We rank 12^th in overall human development (UN Development Program, 2008)

I’ll never forget walking into a neighborhood restaurant in the town of An Giang, Vietnam, near the border of Cambodia, truly a different world, and seeing about 15 patrons riveted to the TV over the bar as they watched clips from the PBS Nightly News hour and then debated an interview with Donald Rumsfeld that they just saw.  Can you imagine the reverse in a similar scene in the U.S.?  Not likely.  It’s a generalization but foreigners tend to know more about the world and even about the U.S. than Americans do.

A Norwegian pharmaceutical executive told me a story about looking for a U.S. marketing partner.  While driving along the Delaware River near Trenton, New Jersey, he asked his prospective partner, “Isn’t this near where Washington made his famous crossing?” to which the chief marketing officer replied, “I don’t know.  I don’t follow that stuff.”  The Norwegian decided that if the man didn’t know the history of his own country that he didn’t want him as a business partner.

So what does this mean for foreign marketers wanting to enter the U.S. and expand their market?

First, don’t assume we know anything about you or your products.  Despite our flaws, we live in the most competitive market in the world and largest developed market.  You’ll need to educate us and that will take some time.

Second, there are so many competing products in the U.S., both domestic and foreign, that the quality of your products often matters less than the relationships you build with us.  We always say, “all things being equal, we’d rather do business with friends.”  Become friends with us.  Develop relationships.  Become a part of our networks and communities and like the first, that doesn’t happen overnight.

Third, find ways to link your values and experiences with ours.  What do you have in common with us?  Do you play baseball or basketball?  Fine, so do we.  Talk about it and you’ll connect more often.  Are you troubled by high taxes, inconsistent investments or supporting the elderly?  These trouble us too.  Show us how we’re alike and we’ll be more accepting of you and your products.

Finally and most important, think strategically, not tactically.  You need a consistent direction here in order to break through the clutter and to be successful, it should be based on the unmet needs of the U.S. market, not your perceptions of who you think you are (if you’re not convinced, start from the beginning of this article again).  A strategy based on market needs will trump tactics every time.  A set of ad hoc tactics that are not integrated or tied to a strategy won’t cut it.

And if you’re confused about market needs, adapting or developing your strategy or what kind of tactics work, all you need to do is ask us.

Tags: Americans, Assumptions, Brands, Canada, Change, Chevy Nova, Chile, Coca-Cola, Cold War, Creativity, Due Diligence, Exceptionalism, God Bless America, Governments, Greece, Irving Berlin, Latin America, Levis, Marketing, McDonalds, Media, Mexico, Mistakes, OECD, Outcomes, Positioning, Socialism, South Africa, Strategy, Trade Associations, U.S. Marketplace, UN, Vietnam

This blog post appeared last week in NearshoreAmericas.com

The August 5^th mine collapse near Copiapo, Chile seemed like more bad luck for a country already hit by one of the largest earthquakes in history this past February.Media coverage of the mining disaster was constant and the way in which the Chilean government and miners handled the situation mesmerized the media and consumers alike. On October 13^th, millions across the globe were riveted to their TV sets watching the dramatic rescue take place, almost two months before anticipated.  It was a stunningly inspirational scene – a disaster, rescue plan and successful result – seemingly in lockstep that even Hollywood writers couldn’t have improved upon.

A Silver Lining?

At the outset of the crisis, it was hard to imagine there could be a silver lining to the story, one that could provide an advantage for how Chile, as a country, is presented to the world. Can the outcome of natural or man-made disasters have a positive impact on a country’s competitiveness in growing exports, attracting investment or seeking outsourcing contracts?  The Chilean miners’ rescue offers some interesting lessons.

1. Leadership makes a difference

There is that old saying that “a fish rots from the head”.  Conversely, positive, focused leadership trickles down throughout an organization and effects planning, implementation and results.  Chile’s focused leadership from President Sebastian Piñera and particularly Mining Minister Laurence Golborne made a difference in how the rescue effort (managed more like a large construction project) was strategically planned and implemented.  The plan allowed for international cooperation, options, customer relations (i.e. miners’ families), and management of public expectations.

2. Emotion and egos get you nowhere; help moves you forward

Chile offers a diverse mix in its socio-economic strata.  Much of the country feels like a highly developed nation.  There is a thriving middle class, high literacy and education rates, advanced use of the Internet and telecommunications.  Yet, there are pockets of extreme poverty and underdevelopment that give a very different picture.  It’s certainly a very long way from Haiti to Chile but Chile still is not at the level of many developed countries which probably explains why the country ranks #30 in the Global Economic Forum’s World Competitiveness Report and not higher.  The Chileans didn’t ask for charitable contributions but did welcome cutting-edge technology and advice from other countries with the goals of beating the expected result of not getting the miners out until mid December.  The U.S. has not responded in as focused or timely a way when it has been hit by disasters.  American egos have gotten in the way of accepting foreign help.

3. Media needs to be managed but not catered to

While the media savvy crisis mangers in Chile worked with the international journalist community, platitudes and wild claims were avoided and the focus was kept on what needed to be done.

For example, the Wall Street Journal published a story “Chile Mining Minister Is Resourceful in Rescue” in which writer Matt Mofffett wrote about the response from the Chilean government, dominated by former business executives.  Centered around Mining Minister Laurence Golborne, a former retail executive, the story traces Golborne’s early missteps in the crisis to gaining the confidence of the miners and their families.  It praises Golborne’s communication skills in dealing “with people from lots of different social strata” and goes on to cite the oft repeated catchphrase for the current government, “Chile Inc.”

Then, on September 10^th, an article appeared in Universal Knowledge@Wharton, the newsletter of the esteemed Wharton School of Business’, titled, “Lessons on Leadership and Teamwork – from 700 Meters Below the Earth’s Surface”.  The article is an interview with Francisco Javier Garrido, a professor of strategy at various MBA programs in Europe and the Americas.  Garrido talks glowingly of the miners and their leadership skills.

These are the types of stories, not the ones about mistresses or movie deals, that will be long lasting and have true value for Chile’s image and competitiveness.

4. Results can reveal societal traits

In the Wharton article, Garrido details the miners’ skills in situation analysis, overcoming elementary responses, viewing efforts as a function of goals, teamwork, ethical coherence and integrity and communication skills.  These 33 miners, he notes have taught “the business world that you need to act with flexibility when it comes to achieving your goals.”  He further points out, “There are lessons here that transcend the world of business instruction when it comes to [defining] such expressions as “decision making,” “leadership” and “teamwork.”

Since the successful rescue, there have been hundreds of articles and blogs adding to the comments on work skills of the miners and leadership of Chilean officials.

Given the positive results of managing this crisis, two questions arise:

First, is it ethical to use the story of the miners to profile or position Chile or Chilean businesses? If used in a tactical way, it seems inappropriate and opportunistic to promote such a story as saying something positive about a company, sector or country.  To those who read the media coverage, the lessons are there for us to see.  The story illustrates how leaders can respond to crises and victims can show behaviors and values that can teach us about disaster response.  Finally, it shows us how leadership can operate in the midst of crisis and media can respond positively to not overreact as so often takes place, but to manage for what everyone hopes will be positive outcomes.

Second, what real impact does crisis management have on a country’s image? Several months ago, in Nearshore Americas, Simon Anholt, a British branding consultant asserted that there is no evidence to show that marketing communications can change a country’s image (see “The Latin America Image Issue:  Going Beyond the Superficial to Create a ‘Nation Brand’.”) Anholt said, “Influencing a country’s reputation is primarily a matter of policy, strategy, innovation and investment over a very long period – it has nothing to do with logos, slogans, advertising or PR campaigns.”

The World Watches

All of this is true but it ignores the impact of what happens when a country exercises strong management tools to solve a difficult problem while the world watches.  Few would dispute that Chile’s positive awareness is much higher today than it was before the mining accident.  It is a result of both what the Chileans did and what they said working with modern media and marketing communications as part of the overall management of the crisis.

The miners’ rescue won’t change Chile’s ranking on the global competitiveness index but it will open doors in the U.S. and elsewhere for Chilean businesses that never looked at the country before.  How long those doors stay open and whether they lead to new business will depend on how well Chile manages from this point forward.

Tags: Change, Chile, Chile Inc., Cris Management, Customers, Emotion and egos, Francisco Javier Garrido, Global Economic Forum, Governments, Journalists, Laurence Golborne, Leadership, Marketing, Matt Moffett, Media, Miners, Nearshore Americas, Opportunism, Outcomes, Positioning, Sebastian Pinera, Simon Anholt, Situation Analysis, Strategy, teamwork, UniversalKnowledge@Wharton, Wall Street Journal, Wharton, World Competitiveness Report

It hasn’t been a week yet since the dramatic rescue of the Chilean miners riveted millions around the world to their TV sets.  We were awestruck by the scene of miners emerging one by one from their entrapment.  For two days, praise was heaped upon Chile’s President Sebastian Piñera, Minister of Mining Laurence Golborne and the international cooperation that brought technology together for a successful result.

It was inspirational and caused even the most cynical pundits to stop in admiration and hope the rescue would encourage us all to rise above the petty things we so often focus on and work together to solve the real problems at hand.  Problems such as the state of our economy, high unemployment, continuing wars abroad, environmental degradation and more, all demand the attention of leaders.  In Chile, we saw leaders come together for a common cause, drop the distractions and create a plan to achieve a positive outcome.  That’s what leaders are supposed to do.  Newspapers and TV stations across the U.S. covered the story and praised the international response.

So what’s happened in the week since the rescue?

Some recent headlines in New York tell us:

• New York Post, October 15:  Son’s Fatal Rage
• New York Post, October 17:  Dead Wives Club
• New York Post, October 19:  Tiger Sex Fake
• New York Daily News:  Every front-page headline since the rescue has covered sports

As always, The New York Times has covered a number of substantive issues but in the country’s largest city, it has the smallest circulation of the three largest daily papers.  The rest of the national print and broadcast media has dropped any mention of the rescue’s impact to the back pages, if it’s mentioned at all.  Other issues being hotly discussed include:  gays in the military, Congressional candidates as witches, whores, bigots, thieves, liars, religious zealots, girly men and manly women.  There has been little discussion of the big issues and problems that we deal with.

The mine rescue, of course, has stimulated some related discussion.  One blog tells how the drill, drill bits, drilling chief, emergency cameras, rescue pod and diet recommendations all came from the US…to cheers I suppose of USA! USA!  Others have noted that the 33 miners and 33 days to dig the shaft both coincide with Christ’s age at death, so surely this was not a victory for leadership, international cooperation and technology but for religious miracles.

It’s all quite frustrating, particularly when most of us from the most conservative to liberal know that we are faced with some of the most challenging problems in our nation’s history.  It’s probably expecting too much of an event such as took place in Chile to get us to pull our heads out of the sand.  In fact, it’s likely that the daunting problems we face are what scare us into looking elsewhere for salvation, to deny that we face a monumental economic challenge that will take more years to recover from than it took to get into and to shove looming problems such as global warming aside.  The U.S. as a nation has become like the person who notices a lump but does nothing for fear that it’s cancer only to learn that survival might have come if the lump had been addressed when discovered.  In truth, most of the problems we face are larger than 33 miners trapped beneath the earth.  Every aspect of that challenge could be dissected and planned with good organizational skills, but it stands as a symbol that should inspire us to demand better.  We don’t need anybody to shout, “the sky is falling.”  There are pieces of it lying all around us.

Tags: Chile, Laurence Golborne, Leadership, Media, Miners, New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times, Outcomes, Sebastian Pinera, Situation Analysis, Strategy

The August 5^th mine collapse near Copiapo, Chile seemed like more bad luck for a country already hit by one of the largest earthquakes in history this past February.  Media coverage of the mining disaster has been constant and the way in which the Chilean government and miners have handled the situation has mesmerized millions of people around the world.  In a desperate situation such as this, it’s hard to imagine there could be a silver lining to the story, even providing an advantage in how Chile, as a country and society, is presented to the world.

The situation could change at any time but three recent articles provide an interesting lesson.  On September 1^st, The Wall Street Journal published a story “Chile Mining Minister Is Resourceful in Rescue” (download highlighted version here) in which writer Matt Mofffett wrote about the response from the Chilean government, dominated by former business executives.  Centered around Mining Minister Laurence Golborne, a former retail executive, the story traces Golborne’s early missteps in the crisis to gaining the confidence of the miners and their families.  The story comments on Golborne’s communication skills in dealing “with people from lots of different social strata” and goes on to cite the oft repeated catchphrase for the current government, “Chile Inc.”

That phrase caught the attention of New York Times writer, Ben Schott, who eight days later wrote an entry (titled “Chile Inc.”) in his popular vocabulary blog and reprinted the Journal’s positive comment about Golborne’s handling of the crisis.

Then, on September 10^th, an article appeared in Universal Knowledge@Wharton, the newsletter of the esteemed Wharton School of Business, titled, “Lessons on Leadership and Teamwork – from 700 Meters Below the Earth’s Surface” (download highlighted version here).  The article is an interview with Francisco Javier Garrido, a professor of strategy at various MBA programs in Europe and the Americas.  Garrido makes a few comments on the consistency of the government but talks glowingly of the miners and their leadership skills.

He details their skills in situation analysis, overcoming elementary responses, viewing efforts as a function of goals, teamwork, ethical coherence and integrity and communication skills.  These 33 miners, he notes have taught “the business world that you need to act with flexibility when it comes to achieving your goals.” He further points out, “There are lessons here that transcend the world of business instruction when it comes to [defining] such expressions as “decision making,” “leadership” and “teamwork.”

All three stories have now been frequently quoted in the print and digital media and particularly the ever-growing blogosphere.  Reading them, we’re compelled to ask whether we would respond in a similar fashion.  It is a difficult situation that has positive lessons for us all and causes us to admire the miners, the government and to ask whether Chileans possess some traits that we all might want to emulate.

The question then comes up of whether it’s ethical to use such a story to profile or position a business in Chile or would it be seen as being crassly opportunistic.  If used in a tactical way, it seems inappropriate to promote such a story as saying something positive about a company, sector or country.  To those who read the media coverage, the lessons are clear enough for us to see.  However, it seems acceptable to talk about the miners’ plight the same way these three stories have treated it thus far.  It illustrates how governments can respond to crises and victims can teach us about behaviors and values we can admire.  Finally, it shows us how leadership can operate in the midst of crisis and media can respond positively to not overreact as so often takes place (and we are seeing repeatedly in the U.S.), but to manage for what we all hope will ultimately become a positive outcome.

Tags: Chile, Chile Inc., Events, Flexibility, Governments, Journalists, Leadership, Media, Media responsibility, Miners, Outcomes, Positioning, Situation Analysis, Strategy

This is the third of a series on Mistakes Countries Make and How They Can Get It Right.

Those immortal words were heard in millions of American homes every Sunday night, during the 1950’s and 60’s, as they were spoken by television impresario, Ed Sullivan on his weekly variety show.  His show was so popular that it was common for children and adults to mimic Sullivan’s nasal accent saying, “Tonight we have a really big show.” A “really big show” for Sullivan fans meant an extravaganza of music and theatrical variety.  It wasn’t Elvis Presley’s first television appearance but certainly was his most famous.  It’s where the Beatles were first seen by most Americans and where viewers were introduced to opera and ballet.  If it was big in entertainment, it was on Ed Sullivan.

The idea of the big show continued into business where today, the really big shows are the Consumer Electronics Show, National Housewares Show, MacWorld Expo and many more.  Large trade shows have become prolific in the U.S. and around the world to the point where they are almost a commodity.  Their cost for exhibitors has increased rapidly placing a premium on those shows where one can see a clear rate of return.

Yet, despite the high costs of trade shows, the idea of the “really big show” has morphed into private, branded trade shows and has become a part of many marketing programs from foreign industries.   It has become common for foreign governments to come to the U.S. and hold large private events for their industries such as food, wine, textiles, technology and more.  An event company and PR firms are hired, hotel and exhibit space secured, visitors and prospective buyers are recruited, foreign companies provided with exhibit space and dignitaries flown in to cut the ribbon or give a keynote speech.

The expectation is that the U.S. media will show up (they rarely do), give the event, its organizers and the foreign industry the right amount of fawning coverage in newspapers and magazines and that buyers will attend with their wallets at the ready.  To ensure the event’s success, the media from the home country is brought in, photos are taken, ribbons cut, speeches made and the event is widely proclaimed to be a grand success…except that it’s often not.

What can’t be seen from abroad is that Americans have become jaded by the extraordinary amount of marketing clutter in their lives.  Surveys have suggested that Americans are exposed to more than 1,500 marketing messages a day.  From the time they wake up until they turn their lights out at night, Americans are bombarded with radio, TV, print, Internet, outdoor, mail, email, phone and tradeshow messaging.  Of course, this takes place in other countries but it has been going on for more years in the U.S.  What foreign visitors most comment on when they visit the U.S. is the number of choices that one has during the day, whether shopping, viewing, listening or traveling.  It all adds up and the bottom line is that the only thing that makes a difference in our lives is the value of our relationships.

When there are so many modes of marketing, word-of-mouth from people we trust has so much more influence than anything else on what we buy and the decisions we make.  Just as we trust our personal friends, business relationships are what influence us in the end.  With all the decisions we have to make, and features and benefits to evaluate, it’s the value we place on relationships and the people who make recommendations to us that makes a difference.

The problem with the “really big show” is that relationships are begun there but not developed or solidified.  We use shows for looking, evaluating, asking and considering but rarely for buying.  When considering any product that has a high cost or a long-term evaluation or testing phase, shows, at best, serve as introductions.  It’s the work that takes place afterward that makes a difference.  Small events or conferences are often better than big ones because they allow prospective buyers to ask more questions and conduct a give-and-take with the seller.  Prospective buyers considering a foreign supplier want to know that both the individual they’re dealing with and their company isn’t going to be in the U.S. for only a week here and there.  They want a commitment to a relationship, to being involved for the long-term, to possible risk sharing or even partnership.

Trade associations and their government partners who have the mandate to promote industries, should consider:

• More small events are better than a few large ones.
• Teach your people to engage with Americans.  Too often foreign business visitors to the U.S. stay back and don’t approach Americans.  We like you to reach out to us.  In fact, events that are built around networking are likely to be more effective than those built around display.
• Events, big or small, will be more successful with both pre and post event follow-up programs.  Prospective sales are most often lost because of poor or slow follow-up.
• You should have an active online social media program that reaches out to prospective buyers.  You’ll know the difference when your social media site has far more Americans or customers on it than your domestic friends and associates.  It’s incredible how many companies and industries tout their facebook and linkedin pages that are filled with people from their own country.  Where are the buyers?  Who’s building relationships with who?  To what end?
• Remember that social media sites like facebook and linkedin are closed systems and have their limitations.  There are no lists to download nor will you have access to anybody’s email address.  At futureshift, we build private communities that support events but more importantly build and support relationships because members self-subscribe and willingly give you their private contact information.
• Rather than think about events, think about building communities.  Community members gain trust for each other and that’s what builds brand loyalty and sales.

So given all this, what made Ed Sullivan such a successful icon?  Sullivan spoke to American audiences in the 1950’s and 60’s when modern marketing was in its nascent stages.  He spoke to us every week, his way of building a relationship with us, and he always showed us things we had rarely seen before.  If you’re a modern day business version of Ed Sullivan, which probably means your name is Steve Jobs, go ahead have the “really big show”.  Otherwise, do something that makes sense and works in today’s U.S. marketplace.

Tags: Americans, Assumptions, Communities, Customers, Ed Sullivan, Events, futureshift, Governments, Marketing, Media, Social Media, Steve Jobs, Trade Associations, Trade Shows, U.S. Marketplace