New Ways to Market

There’s a lot of talk about inbound and outbound marketing, but not necessarily so much talk about how to finance that marketing. While newspapers like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer close their print shops in favor of web only reporting, venues for marketing seem to be diminishing. Traditional venues are also very expensive for large scale campaigns. (I talked in an earlier blog about creating large scale media from single billboards. )

On the other hand there are the “inbound” marketing venues. While these are typically cheaper, they also require time and the goodwill of internet surfers. Inbound marketing can be somewhat passive, when it comes to branching into brand new markets, especially where only a fraction of the target market is interested in venues such as Twitter.

Technology and the internet has however, opened new versions of traditional marketing venues, while dramatically lowering the price. One such example is internet radio. Nowadays, a little research can net you a permanent radio station for very low cost and very high quality and extensive reach. Furthermore, spin-off advertizing can actually offset the cost. In fact, if you plan well, your radio station will net you a large profit and not cost you a dime!

Now that’s a venue worth pursuing!

Hewlett Packard shows way to win back customers on the brink

It’s been a few days since the last blog - basically because my computer stopped working. Well, that’s not quite true, the internal modem just seemed to disappear from view. I’ve only had my HP Pavillion for between 2 and 3 years, so I was a little miffed to put it mildly. The first phone calls I made to HP were not an example of good marketing and sales. However, despite the fact that Hewlett Packard is having to tighten its strings, I was eventually blown away by a call that showed real customer service and ethics.

The biggest problem in my experience of HP was the number of people I talked to who were not educated sufficiently for their positions. Rather than put me through to someone who could help they confidently told me things that turned out not to be true, or they omitted some pretty important information. For example, the tech support person I called (in the US), confidently told me my motherboard was fried with very little investigation. They apparently forgot to tell me that HP had issued a notice on my model because of recurrent internal modem issues. (That would have saved the next calls).

Nowadays it seems impossible to operate for too long without a computer, so I decided to see what I could buy from HP in the way of another Pavillion laptop. I think I called about 4 or 5 times after I was “advised” by my US tech-support person on what to buy. I was put on hold several times for 15 mins or more. None of the people could answer some basic questions on components.

At this point, I decided to forget HP altogether and emailed their CEO on the webpage form. Rather surprisingly I got a pretty swift reply from Customer Service. I gave HP sales one more shot, and spoke to a representative who actually was educated in the computers he was selling. He got my business and I’m typing this on a new Pavillion laptop.

BUT that’s not all!! A few days later HP called out of the blue to inform me that I should have been told about the notice on my last computer. They sent a Fedex box and it’s currently at HP, possibly about to be repaired for nothing, as the only issue seems to be with the modem. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t tell me about this before I spent money on a new computer, but I really appreciated their proactive honesty.

What lessons can we learn for the recession/depression? Those companies that take a proactive ethical stance and value customer care are the companies that will emerge with loyal, satisfied and even tolerant customers. Education for the sales and tech support teams would have avoided my frustration but my own experience shows even large mistakes in these areas can be rectified with proactive customer service. It would have been easy for HP to forget me, and it costs HP to bring in my laptop to fix it on their dime. The temptation to avoid good service was considerable, but kudos to you HP. You did the right thing, and I believe these principles will stand you in good stead.

"We" or "You" in International Marketing

Gunnar Brune recently highlighted the increased use of "we" and the increased used of the familiar form of address in international advertizing (AdAge 1.28.09). But how do we make marketing more effective through use of language?

Those who are sharp (or not American) will notice the date in the first sentence. This immediately confuses or puts off most of the world, as America seems to be the only country which puts the date month/day/year. This highlights that there's a lot more to international marketing than a word or two. Not that Brune says there isn't. He does however seem to give one factor a little too much weight in my opinion. He rightly states that the growth of social media has greatly accelerated the move to the "one world family" feeling. He then cites recent ad campaigns which either include "we" or familiarize" ("Du" in German, "Tu" in French/Spanish, etc.) he appears to suggest as the "way to go". This is the conclusion I would clarify.

I believe it certainly helps with branding if one can gain the dominant image in a country or community. Imagine if it was as natural to the average Greek to identify "Greek" with your product in the same way he or she identifies "Greek" with the national Greek Orthodox Church. But how can we get there, or is it even desirable to get there?

There are many cultural issues that need to be confronted for the marketer. "We" and "Du" won't work by themselves. For example, what do you do in a language and society that is very highly structured with many different levels of address? This would be the case with Korean. In Korean younger siblings still address older siblings with great respect. How would this "instant familiarization" play out there? What image would your brand have? What effect would that have on sales?

Another area to consider is the growing "primary culture" or less technical world market. "Group think" already exists and does not need to be reinvented. However, there are generally gatekeepers who still demand certain protocols. This may seem foreign in the West but the same is true here too. Consider the fashion industry. The Fashion gatekeepers decide what's "in". They have to be addressed in the right way. Fashion conscious buyers still adhere primarily to these gatekeepers' opinions.

Lastly, if our brands follow everyone into the "melting pot" what will set it apart. It's a balance to be sure, but as well as recognizing the present, we need to plan for the future.

Advantages of the Economic Crisis

It’s true that the job losses are mounting every day, and I’m compassionate for the individual tragedies that this can engender. Looked at one way, we are sliding down a bottomless pit and most people are only jamming on the brakes, hoping they don’t slide in too.

That’s the public side of this crisis, but it’s not the underbelly. The crisis has given new impetus to creative innovation - new products, services and business models. The bulk of these have yet to gain an audience of more than 100, but several are surely the juggernauts of the next decades.

I’ve had the privilege to talk to five start-ups in the last few days. Each one has excellent possibilities. They are coming to market at just the right time. The traditional players, who would typically “muscle out” competition of superior products, are now unable to compete from the same position of strength. The market is looking for better and cheaper products and services. Even though the crisis has produced risk-averse characteristics in several executives, those who are looking forward, are more than willing to streamline, improve and innovate.

I believe that this is the time for the entrepreneur. I’m excited at the potential out there. The world is flattening and is really our oyster. Let’s see what successes are soon birthed to take us into the next generation of business and profit.

Is Twitter Twittish?

Twitter is all the rage for many social networkers. For the rest, it is often viewed as a despised waste of time. Who’s right? Is Twitter the smart way forward or are you a twit for using it? Mashable.com just published an article on the top 40 Company Twitters. It also comes to some interesting conclusions.

First, the top Twitters: They come from a variety of industries. Representing cars is Adam Denison from Chevrolet. He tweets “because he wants to be part of the online dialogue around Chevrolet.” Ford, GM and Honda also have dedicated Tweeters. Travel is headed by Jet Blue and their Tweeter - Morgan Johnston. Other industries with companies that are serious about Tweeting include the leisure industry, sports, accounting, warehouse/retail and fast-food outlets. Only one non-profit is listed - the Red Cross.

What do they think about the value of Twitter? Obviously they value it, or they would not dedicate personnel to this endeavor. Lon Cohen at Mashable contends Brands belong on Twitter because Twitter is opt-in, Twitter is the new phone company and because Twitter enables Brands to develop real personality to a greater extent.

However, the final questions for this short blog are these: To what extent are customers retained and to what extent are new customers won as a result of Twitter? Are Tweeting marketers the engine that drives the demand, or is Twitter really gaining mainstream traction? If it is increasing its user base through natural interest in Twitter’s communication form, as opposed solely to marketers’ hype, then greater thought should be given to its international and multilingual use. Twitter’s communication is short, which is advantageous for those in communities with less connectivity. It could also enable those who are remote to feel part of the main debate. Perhaps Twitter could end up being a great “New Market Detective”.

Offshore or Onshore?

The economic crisis has spawned a new dilemma seemingly at odds with the “flattening of the world”. Flattening is a term often used nowadays to emphasize the strength of contact between countries. Nowadays travel and the internet have made it possible to segment companies across continents.

Why do companies go this route? Unsurprisingly it’s for profit. For better or worse economics usually end up driving the train. While companies generally increase their profits by this kind of offshore segmentation, the shareholders are usually the only ones to see the benefit.

While there is high employment in a country then everyone is happy, however when there are large numbers of lay-offs the ethic of “offshoring” become more personal. Suddenly your friends are laid off because their jobs have gone overseas. The resulting questions are complex:

Against offshoring:

• It creates hardship for local workers.
• If all profits only go to the upper echelons, shareholders or developing greater offshore structure, jobs will never return to the local workforce.
• Poverty in the workforce and large-scale unemployment worsens a shaky economy.
• Local workers’ lives should be more important than quick profits.

For offshoring:

• It may be the only way a company can survive the recession.
• Resulting profits could create future jobs for rehiring of locals.
• A failed company will ultimately be worse for the country’s economy.
• It’s going to happen anyway. Be the first to gain from it. Your workers will have to retrain before too long regardless. Better sooner than later.

Is there a clear answer? Not really. Economically offshoring makes more sense, but it would be nice to think that companies would put on a self-imposed limit on spending the profits. Rather than allowing them all to go to upper echelons and shareholders, perhaps they could commit a portion to retraining and new job creation.

Is Blogging Important in International Marketing?

Today Advertising Age published a list of the 934 most visited blogs. Somewhat unsurprisingly Seth Godin’s blog is at the top. Trolling this list however, it was very hard to find any non-US blogs. Coming in at number 3 was a blog based in Bahrain. An Australian blog hit number 10 and Italians and Canadians took the number 15 and 16 spots. Of the top 50 blogs 40 were from the US, 3 from Italy, 2 from Canada, and 1 each from Sweden, Bahrain, Australia, Netherlands and the UK.

What does this tell us? Firstly, we have to suspect that these stats only refer to English blogs. By all accounts China is a blogging force, but of course the language creates a seemingly insurmountable barrier to cross-fertilization. Secondly, we see a clear trend when it comes to marketing outside the US in English. While English blogs may increase in importance for marketing, they are certainly not there yet. Undue investment in this area will create an unbalanced campaign, unless low-level research reveals specific advantages for your market segment. Thirdly, if blogs are not being used in indigenous language, what e-communication is being used and what communications technologies are promising strong growth in that country or culture? E-communication is obviously growing worldwide, but preferred forms can vary widely from culture to culture and from country to country.

Some of my suggestions:

1. Blogs that include automatic translation tools on their sites will be the first to cross the seemingly impenetrable barrier between language groups.
2. Keyword searches in multiple languages.
3. Assess how much the “blog phenomenon” is driven by US bloggers. If bloggers drive demand rather than consumers, then this form of marketing will quickly lose ground to the next new craze? Look abroad, because the next new craze might just be starting there already.

Crisis spawns new market opportunities

I just had a stimulating lunch with an executive from the food industry. During our discussion I learned how this company developed over the past decades and I was interested to see opportunities for the future. Where the economic crisis greatly impacts previous spending and traditional habits, it also creates new trends and opportunities. Here are some brief thoughts:

1. How do your customers really view you in toto? What picture do they have of you in their mind’s eye? There are many ways to dive into this research, but a cursory troll of the internet often gives valuable information. Information can be particularly valuable from negative comments.
2. Does this picture develop longevity in brand loyalty? If so for how long? Will your customers long for the time they…?
3. While many previous customers may be visiting/buying less, which areas of your potential market are increasing? For example, if people have less money to spend, they may be at home more, yet most are on job hunts, so where are they going and what are they doing?
4. What can you do to fit your product to “their” need?
5. How could you offer over and above?

I believe companies who discover answers to these kind of questions, will not only survive the recession, but grow through it and greatly expand after it with a whole new wave of brand loyalty.

Is Chrysler learning nothing?

After writing about the intelligence of Ford’s recent PR, it’s only fair to turn attention to Chrysler after their recent $1 Million “Thank You Ad”. What are they doing?

Firstly, is there anyone in the US who thinks this is a good use of $1M in the current climate? Whoever advised Chrysler to take this course of action is probably the same person who said it’s no PR problem to fly to DC in a private jet. The $1M they blew in a single day would have provided several jobs for a year. Why not give that money to someone who’ll make more with it like a successful small business owner? Chrysler obviously cannot be trusted.

Secondly, who is doing their market research? What media format did Chrysler choose for their blitz? Print - or so it seems - was the main thrust. I would be surprised to learn that as many as even 50% of the country were even aware of the ad. Furthermore I would think it would be less than 33% of those under 40 years old. Who is Chrysler trying to thank?

Thirdly, what is the purpose? If they want to help people buy Chrysler why not distribute that $1M in incentives to buy? There’s all kinds of ways they could have done this to make very powerful and effective PR in doing this. The result of this would have definitely achieved national media play as a bonus.

What can we say? I hope something changes at Chrysler before they get any more money.

Is Ford showing the way out of recession?

A couple of weeks ago, most people were rightly criticizing Ford, Chrysler and GM's CEOs for their arrogance or ignorance in flying to DC in private jets. This week Ford's CEO has been the first to show understanding of what transpired. Ford's answer is not only to rectify a mistake, but also to show forward thinking out of recession.

In refusing the bailout money, Ford is rectifying a really bad marketing and public relations mistake with a real win. Judging by the massive outpouring of goodwill on the web since this step was announced, Ford's future looks rosy once consumers have the money to buy new cars. In fact, in my opinion, as cars are necessary to the bulk of Americans, and as Americans will want to help the US economy, Ford is likely to win market share even in the recession.

Secondly, in refusing bailout money, Ford has separated itself from GM and Chrysler. Ford now looks like a healthier, more forward looking enterprise, and that "feel" will transfer to perception of its cars. It's a shame for Chevrolet (GM) as its marketing of the new Malibu was pretty nice. The rest of GM and Chrysler in toto really don't seem to have done anything for the longest time.

Ford's decision should encourage businesses to look to the future and to recognize the critical importance of its positioning at this juncture. This recession is levelling competition and public relations and marketing coups won through this hardship will be worth double those made in a strong economy. The timing for Ford couldn't be better as Toyota (of Lean Management fame) just posted its first loss in 70 years. If it markets well, and if it ensures a quality product, who knows where Ford may end up in 2 years. Yes, it will still be a challenge for Ford over the next year, but I would be willing to bet it ends 2009 in a much healthier position than GM or Chrysler.

Madoff, Dreier and Marketing

With the Dreier scheme, Stein Bagger and the IT Denmark scandal and the uncovering of what appears to be the biggest Ponzi scheme in history in New York (Madoff), does it get any worse? One thing is clear - that many of the "recognized authorities" were solely convinced with apparent success and greed, rather than sound business review. How could Ernst & Young name Bagger "Entrepreneur of the Year"? How could so many influential investors invest with Madoff?

If we asked 100 people on the street if they believed in guaranteed permanent profits in their investments or guaranteed rises for no work, most would recognize this as impossible. However apart from the human suffering inflicted, this false belief, coupled with ever increasing greed, has led to wanton spending not just in bonuses but also in departments such as marketing.

Recently Casey Jones wrote about this in an interesting article in AdAge (12.18.08). If I were to put a practical spin on it, I would ask questions like this? If a non-profit can achieve national media response with one billboard after just a few days, what do so many companies spend millions blanketing cities with billboards that no-one notices? This true example shows how organizations, that have to take care in spending, can find ways to more success in advertising than the established big spenders.

Perhaps value for money in operations should be a more important issue when considering investment.

Customer Service, Customer Service

It's certainly not new to emphasize customer service. Marketers have pushed that for decades (although it could be said that the last 10 years has seen a move away from this emphasis for short term gain). Here's something to make those think who are perhaps succumbing to panic and throwing out the idea of customer service in favor of short term economics.

At the weekend a family member dropped my digital camera, pushing the zoom lens out of its track. I began to call stores to find out who had onsite repair, and what the charge would be. Most companies do not have onsite repair. However, I called a family business in the process of my search and the gentleman at the other end offered to look at the camera for free, and if possible fix it!! For free!! Needless to say, I went down to the store an hour or so later. While I was waiting to see if he could fix the camera, I began to look at potential replacements, with the idea that I'd find out the info and then probably buy it at a cheaper price online.

The man could not fix my camera onsite, but I was so impressed by his service I began asking questions about the cameras they had. I was then impressed by his knowledge and his honesty in telling me which models were "not really worth" it for me. To cut a long story short, as I had already done some research about price before I went, I was offered a very good deal with an exceptional make of camera.

I left extremely happy, determined to buy a second camera there for my wife and to recommend this store over all the megastores (who have lousy customer service and generally seem to just want to get your money out of you). The price was more than comparable because camera firms are competing in all marketplaces. All I can say is I hope this company takes over from one organization I could mention where I bought my computer. That well known national chain, has arguably the worst and nastiest customer service out there (including a corporate customer "service" person who told me "When you leave the store it's no longer our business" - and that despite the fact I bought an extended warranty). Not only do I never buy anything there anymore, even if it's a little cheaper. I always advise others to avoid this store.

Where will these two organizations be in 2 years time? My guess is that the family business will have survived the recession nicely, while the national chain will have downsized and worsened its reputation. We'll see.

Whopper Virgins - genius or madness?

Is Burger King on the right track? Does it promote or hinder the global village? Does it prove Burger King's burgers are better than...?

Firstly, I think we should congratulate Burger King’s marketers for coming up with an original idea that emphasizes the growing connectedness people are feeling across the world. Secondly, the Whopper Virgins have definitely created more of a stir than normal – something that in its own right proves some sort of success.

However, will the campaign increase sales? While I’m still in suspense as to the response, I suspect it will show Burger King’s burgers in a good light! How many people are as cynical as me? Years ago my brother was stopped on the street to try the “Pepsi Taste Test”. He immediately told them his preference for Coke, which made him the “ideal candidate”.
However, when he flawlessly showed which was Coke (he liked that one) and which was Pepsi (he didn’t), his statistic did not see the light of day. Decades later Pepsi is still number two to Coke.

Lastly, how does Burger King’s ad work in minority communities in the US? Do Chinese viewers like the “ignorant backwoodsy” Chinese people portrayed in the ad? And what about the ads around the world? Do viewers in Singapore see rednecks from Arkansas trying a Rendang Burger? Hmm….

Whopper Virgins - genius or madness?

Is Burger King on the right track? Does it promote or hinder the global village? Does it prove Burger King's burgers are better than...?

Firstly, I think we should congratulate Burger King’s marketers for coming up with an original idea that emphasizes the growing connectedness people are feeling across the world. Secondly, the Whopper Virgins have definitely created more of a stir than normal – something that in its own right proves some sort of success.

However, will the campaign increase sales? While I’m still in suspense as to the response, I suspect it will show Burger King’s burgers in a good light! How many people are as cynical as me? Years ago my brother was stopped on the street to try the “Pepsi Taste Test”. He immediately told them his preference for Coke, which made him the “ideal candidate”.
However, when he flawlessly showed which was Coke (he liked that one) and which was Pepsi (he didn’t), his statistic did not see the light of day. Decades later Pepsi is still number two to Coke.

Lastly, how does Burger King’s ad work in minority communities in the US? Do Chinese viewers like the “ignorant backwoodsy” Chinese people portrayed in the ad? And what about the ads around the world? Do viewers in Singapore see rednecks from Arkansas trying a Rendang Burger? Hmm….

Inbound or Outbound Marketing?

I just heard a very impressive and convincing presentation from a web-marketing expert. His premise was that traditional outbound marketing is on the way out as an increasing number of people have filters in place to prevent it. Simultaneously these same people are becoming increasingly annoyed by intrusions into their space, time and consciousness. An increasingly popular method of marketing nowadays is “Inbound Marketing” - that which offers free valuable service, encouraging connection, interaction and enquiry. The theory is that those who connect due to their own volition will become much more loyal customers at much less a cost. Consequently much time is spent on blogs, websites and various other internet forums. Webinars are posted for education, questions are answered for free and items of interest forwarded.

Is it true though that these forms of marketing are rendering traditional media marketing redundant? I don’t think we can say that, as it relies on a certain degree of web access and web familiarity. For example, while this trend may be true for English-speaking people in the US, it is not true on the same scale with those who only speak Spanish in the US. Those Spanish-speakers who are regular web-users tend to post more than English-speakers, but represent a lesser proportion of the US Latino community. This means that a web-based approach, while looking to the future, does not effectively deal with the present.

The same is true of many countries and cultures around the world. Urban China is very web-savvy, yet there are still sizeable communities in China who are more or less cut off from the rest of the world, who do not speak Mandarin Chinese, and who are unable to use a computer. China is in fact an interesting case because it is at the forefront of blogging, yet this very approach does not reach a significant portion of its own immediate market. Therefore other strategies are necessary.

Inbound marketing is very important, and I believe its principles can be applied with great success to areas such as person to person grass-roots marketing as well. It is clear the web will have an increasingly important role to play worldwide. Yet, if we abandon other forms of marketing at this point, we will take ourselves out of very significant present markets and also become unable to develop a majority of brand new markets internationally.

Keep jobs in the US or not?

This is a touchy subject right now. Recently I was in communication with a CEO from another part of the world about partnerships with the US. Conducting some initial research with companies here in the US, I was struck with a dilemma. Even if I thought it was a good partnership with the foreign company, would there be fallout in the loss of local jobs. If this happened would it hurt the economy and would it worsen the potential prospects of the US workforce?

Many complain about the drain of US jobs to other parts of the world. However the truth is that high quality work is being carried out there more cheaply than in the US. As economics drive companies, they follow the line of most profit. In my view a reactionary isolationism is not going to help anyone. Instead a short-term economic and/or political gain will give way to massive loss in the world marketplace.

Rather, I suggest the US consider models based on those of the Japanese after the 2nd World War. Faced with a country with very little in the way of raw materials, Japan assessed its potential strengths - concentrating on developing industries demanding great skill and brainpower and few raw materials. The US is losing place and influence in the world economy, and while it is still the world’s richest and most influential nation, it must recognize times are changing.

The answer is not going to come in putting up a trade wall, but in identifying and seizing new market opportunities in an increasingly unified world market.

What was the biggest mistake of the "Big 3 in Detroit?"

There has been a lot of talk about the various bailouts. Particular negative attention was given to the recent request by GM, Ford and Chrysler for a bailout as the CEOs arrived in three private planes. Obviously the costs of these flights - approx $20,000 per flight - was not much in light of the multi-million bailout deals they were pleading for. However, this one action has not only jeopardized their requests, but garnered an awful lot of ill will towards their companies as the time they can least afford it.

I wonder how much these CEOs brought in their marketing/public relations experts to help them with their overall strategy. It’s hard to imagine that any of these CEOs was really thinking when they made their decisions to fly separately in private planes. Why didn’t they think? Was it tradition, arrogance, short-sightedness? These discussions with Congress could have turned into a wonderful opportunity to gain funding, increased the number of Americans determined to “buy American” and positioned them at the head of the growing drive to be green.

We don’t know what the result of this big marketing/public relations faux pas is going to be, but we should all beware we lead from the front in the public messages we send out about our companies, if we want to come of this meltdown healthy and growing.

Can branding hurt you?

This week McDonalds hit the headlines again! McDonalds has an unmistakable brand image. That could be said to be a massive advantage. McDonalds has certainly been able to expand internationally but how is it perceived in other countries? I was intrigued by the experiment they’re making in Japan by NOT using their brand. Their publicity machine says it’s so that customers can taste the taste without the image of McDonalds in their minds. The question is, “What makes McDonalds concerned that their image would have a negative impact on the taste buds of the Japanese?”

I remember the first McDonalds in the UK (bad quality), Geneva (better), Moscow (very ironic it was considered a luxury restaurant when Russian restaurants were so much better), outskirts of Jerusalem (really hate seeing those arches before the rest of the city). What image does McDonalds bring to your mind?

Comparing McDonalds to Coke, I realize that Coke has a very neutral to positive image in my mind, no matter what language or culture. When I think of McDonalds I remember how hard it was for me to initially even associate the word “Restaurant” with the type of food on offer. I also remember the negative publicity in the UK (the longest court case on record) for the debatable ethics of their targeted ads to kids. The movie “Supersize Me” hasn’t much helped either. Perhaps this image has prompted McDonalds to try their Japanese experiment. Will it be the precursor to a brand change? Is this McDonald’s first attempt to associate their brand with quality?

Whatever the upshot of this experiment, it certainly reinforces the need to be aware of the development of the brand image. Too little attention can have an impact decades in the future.

Trends through the recession

Ad Age recently published an interesting interview with Samsung CMO Steven Cook. He related some of his observations, which I believe can help many, as we seek ways through the tough times ahead.

Firstly, he mentioned the long-term success of companies that do not restrict marketing in tough times. Of course, inept marketing is not worth the money it takes, but effective marketing in tough times will actually help your company come out ahead of the competion - and faster! Procter & Gamble’s commitment to marketing helps explain its longevity. I recently went to a presentation paralleling the situation in 1929 and today. Companies such as P&G and General Motors actually did very well employing the strategy of consistent and innovative marketing.

Secondly, Mr. Cook shows the “upside” of the tough times for marketing. E.g. if people can afford less to go out to movies, they are more likely to invest in home movie options - including flat screen TVs, the new film downloading technologies and servers etc. This should emphasize the need for all of us to see the markets that will in fact be created by the recession.

Thirdly, Mr. Cook mentions the growing influence of “Green concerns”. He mentions how important it is to remain humble, not promise what you can’t deliver, and then deliver or over-deliver. I also liked his creative thinking when he gave out cellphone recycle envelopes at a recent conference when he was keynote speaker.

All of these examples should encourage us as we look at the ways strong companies are finding to negotiate a challenging time and come out ahead.

Countries to watch?

Jennifer Alsever wrote a thought provoking article on BNET.com suggesting the best countries for small, medium and large companies to look at when it comes to expansion. She agrees that it makes a lot of sense for US companies to look at international expansion, given the state of the US economy right now. I believe it will not only help companies survive the current crisis, but will position them well ahead of the competition when things pick up.

Here is her list of countries:

For large companies she suggests the more obvious choices - India, China and Russia (For me Russia poses some weightier and less obvious challenges than the others but there are obvious benefits to all three).

For medium-size companies she suggests Chile, Singapore and UAE. (I find this an ecclectic and interesting set of choices).

For small companies she suggests Vietnam, Rwanda, Peru and Kazakhstan. (I find this the most interesting set of choices).

I found this article well-written and researched, with a helpful risk index. The entire article is available at http://www.bnet.com/2436-13239_23-198453.html. What do you think?