Brand New View

2016 Olympic Selection...

We will know this Friday which city will be selected to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. The contenders are Rio de Janeiro, Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo. As I discussed in my last book, The Olympic Games Effect (John Wiley & Sons 2008), hosting an Olympic Games is more than just a financial undertaking. Certainly, the literally billions of fans that tune in to watch the games creates a sizable economic impact. And the TOP sponsors (The Olympic Partners...) are eager to ensure their investments lead to increased awareness, brand development, and long-term success, let alone improved business performance. But the Games, at their core, have always been about the athletes. This has been true since their inception in 776 BC and it continues today. Granted, today's best Olympic athletes garner attention and wealth that the Ancient Greeks could not have even remotely envisioned. At the same time, the Ancient Greeks did have their own form of athlete sponsorships (City States gave victors food for life, lifetime tax relief, homes...) that are loosely parallel to the rewards received by today's athletes.

Beyond the athletes, the Olympics have historically served as a source of pride for the host city as well as a connection to the transcendent values represented by the Olympic Dream. In my book, the aforementioned Olympic effect refers to the brand halo that is cast across those (people and organizations) most closely associated with the Games. Indeed, even conflicts and wars were stopped temporarily to honor the Olympics. While that no longer happens, the imagery and related associations remain powerful attractants to athletes, fans, and companies everywhere. The age of globalization means the Olympic ideal of nations around the world coming together to share a common love of sport for 17 days has taken on added meaning.

I support the ambition of each city bidding. As a US citizen, I would love to see the 2016 Games awarded to Chicago as I believe the setting would be sensational and the Games would be exceptionally well-organized. President Obama's just-announced intention to fly to Copenhagen in support of Chicago's bid gives the US a significant boost. Madrid and Tokyo are both spectacular cities, but are less likely to win because of recent Games in their respective regions (I am being a bit loose about the term 'region'). Rio de Janeiro, however, is the most intriguing bidding city and may well come out on top. Their location is magnificent, the culture is exciting, and the location fits in well with the IOC's desire to strengthen diversity in host city selection. Rio has hosted, or will host, major international sports events, including the Pan American Games and the World Cup. Two variables may undermine their bid: security, and overpromising/underdelivering. Reports suggest that there is concern that Rio may not be able to provide the sophisticated and deep security needed to protect athletes, coaches, fans, and tourists overall. Whether or not this concern is valid, Rio must convincingly convey their security plans. Another concern is overpromising and underdelivering. Brazil is known as a vibrant, energetic culture. The question will be whether that enthusiasm is translated into unrealistic plans. On the positive side, a Rio win would be huge for the international Olympic Movement--much more so than a win by the other three cities, partly because it will be the first Olympics in South America.

Whoever wins, the ultimate beneficiaries will be the world community. As glib as that may sound, there is no event in the world that rivals the Olympics for bringing out the collective goodwill of nations.

Noise

What a week. Three big events, three examples of outrageous communication undeservedly overshadowing the work of others. Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst of "You Lie" during President Obama's healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress either demonstrated he has impulse control issues, or he was cynically seeking his brush with fame. My opinion is both, but it's just my opinion. Reflecting the perverse nature of US politics today, Wilson's lack of decorum and respect generated over $1 million in campaign contributions for his democratic challenger, and another $1 million dollars his own campaign. Moving over to sports, Serena Williams' profanity-laced tirade against a line judge in her semi-final match against Kim Clijsters cost Serena her chance to play in the final (not that she would have gotten to the finals anyway since Clijsters was clearly the better player that day). Sadly for Clijsters, her victory took second position to ongoing talk about Williams ridiculous, unsportsmanlike outburst. To add insult to injury, Williams was fined a paltry $10,5000 for her verbally abusive and embarrassing tirade and will apparently be allowed to play in the doubles final today. While Venus should not be penalized by having her teammate disqualified, the tennis association should seriously consider more aggressive penalties against Serena, perhaps by preventing her from playing in the next grand slam, or some other similar penalty. The good news is that Clisjters went on to win the US Open, confirming that her victory over Williams was not a fluke. Finally, in the world of entertainment, last night's MTV Video Music Awards saw Taylor Swift win the first award of the evening for best female video. Less than a few seconds into her acceptance speech, Kanye West took the microphone and said, effectively, that Beyonce's video was better. A stunned Swift clearly felt awkward and her moment in the spotlight was tarnished. Fortunately, Swift was invited back onstage later by Beyonce (who had just won her own award for Video of the Year), to finish her acceptance speech. 

In all three situations, three accomplished people saw their moment overshadowed by the petulant behavior of others, tarnishing the respect they should have otherwise enjoyed and deserved. Noise isn't communication...it's just noise.

Persuasive Communication?

In the many weeks since my last blog post, the US healthcare debate has grown increasingly divisive. Obama came into office with a reputation as a communicator of substance, supported by a plate full of bold ideas. Fixing US healthcare has been a key component of his first year agenda, and he set an aggressive timetable to have new healthcare legislation signed by the August Congressional recess. 

That, of course, did not happen, and there is plenty of blame to go around. The healthcare debate has been disappointing on three fronts: the President's own efforts; the efforts of the opposition; and the inability of many citizens to truly understand the issue. This latter point is directly affected by the former two. 

President Obama has been less-than-clear about the healthcare proposals, and his administration has further clouded the issue by making sometimes contradictory statements. Witness Obama's own remarks that seemed to diminish the importance of a public option, echoed by his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, both of whom have stated that alternatives to the public option (such as co-ops) would be considered. Both have since backed off, reiterating the importance of the public option. Members of the House have stated that any healthcare proposal without a public option would not be supported, whereas members of the Senate have indicated that any proposal with a public option would fail. How to reconcile the two? Well, for starters Obama needs to make a more aggressive and cogent argument explaining how the public healthcare option would work, and stick to a consistent message. While he and his administration claim consistency, their recent public communications have lack such discipline. HIs communication on this issue has been sloppy, sometimes chaotic, and increasingly defensive--a surprising combination given his reputation to the contrary.

The opposition is even more frustrating--insidiously so. Rather than argue facts and provide viable alternative proposals, they have chosen instead to mislead by making patently false accusations about what the Obama administration's healthcare proposals would mean. The idea appears to be that when one lacks a defensible and intellectually honest alternative, the only choice is to mindlessly attack and hope that something sticks. From claiming death panels for senior citizens, to providing healthcare for illegal immigrants, to the complete takeover of healthcare, the opposition has effectively stirred up citizens with a torrent of outrageous misstatements. Apparently, the opposition's communication is about being shrill and alarmist as opposed to substantive and thoughtful. The townhall meetings have hardly been a model for civil discourse, with opponents coaching citizens to yell, interrupt and generally disrupt proceedings to suggest latent anger among the majority, despite clear and regular polls that show the actual majority of citizens support a healthcare overhaul. The townhall meetings have, in many instances, been hijacked by a well-orchestrated communication campaign from the opposition motivated mostly by the hope that Obama's healthcare proposal is defeated, thereby harming the President as well, rather than solving the issue itself. And the Obama administration's responses have been weak in comparison.

Citizens need to dig below the surface of both sides of the healthcare debate. Understanding the implications of the public option, for example, will reveal that it is not a secret effort to undermine our freedom (as has been claimed by particularly vocal opponents). But it is important for people to develop their own point of view as to whether a public option is good for them and society. The current 40+ million uninsured raise all of our respective healthcare costs because they tend to use the more expensive services (i.e. emergency services), whereas providing them public coverage will help keep the use of these services down and corresponding costs lower. If nothing else, the public option seems like the right thing to do from both an ethical and moral point of view in a modern, first-world society. But again, if people believe there is a viable alternative, then get it on the table. But don't shout mindless invective. Instead, spend more time learning about the issue so that meaningful alternatives can be developed.

There is still time for both sides to bring more sensible arguments to the healthcare debate and a key starting point is developing persuasive communications based on well-reasoned plans. Will the end result be perfect? Of course not. But the current healthcare system is so badly broken that to let it continue  in its present form is a recipe for disaster. Let's hope that the coming months see a more thoughtful and honestly informed citizenry and a positive, constructive approach by politicians on all sides of the issue.

Eurobama-The New Language

Europe is stunned. "The President of the US is listening to us?" they muse. Many European countries agree that they like the new US president, at least for now. Let's hope they continue to keep an open mind as Obama reaches out to the European community in the coming months seeking more substantial involvement on a wide range of issues, from a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, to disarming Iran's nuclear ambitions, to a more coordinated international set of actions for reigniting economies and regulating financial markets (and more). 

Obama’s popularity in Europe is due to several reasons: he is bright, articulate, hopeful, has interesting ideas, and is able to grasp subtle issues. He is also not Bush.  But that last point has been over emphasized by the press. There were several competent successors to Bush that were not Bush...Hillary Clinton, John McCain, for example. But Obama won. Why? Because he represented substantial change, versus incremental change. He was different in many ways: intellectually, temperamentally, and strategically. And his personal story is compelling. Britain, France and Germany in particular all have different reasons for liking Obama. Many of Obama's qualities that Americans find appealing are equally appealing to these countries. 

But each of these countries also have very different histories with the US....Britain has been the US’s biggest ally for the past 50 years and, more controversially, the past eight years. Citizens there find him refreshing and candid, from what the polls say, and are undoubtedly delighted that their country is not as easily maligned by the rest of the world due to its special relationship with the US. The French, who have historically been as different from the US as they have from their own EU partners, see Obama as someone to believe in and, to their surprise, he is also a US president. This must be an anxiety-inducing paradox for them. And from what political pundits say, Germans like Obama because he is a pragmatic visionary (now if Merkel could only demonstrate greater pragmatism herself by implementing a more aggressive fiscal policy). All perceptions of Obama appear to be accurate.

Europeans also like Obama because he has signaled that the US would no longer ‘go it alone’ in foreign policy, but would engage its partners in Europe and around the world. That was a very important message to send.

But perhaps the biggest issues that captured the hearts, minds, and support of many Europeans were Obama's order to shut Guantanamo Bay within a year and his halting of harsh interrogation techniques of prisoners. These issues also removed key hot buttons that fueled a global backlash against the US the past eight years. Obama is speaking a language that the world, particularly Europe in this case, wants to hear--that he meant what he said and would back up his words with actions. 

100+ Days

I got a kick out of Stephen Colbert's recent show, making light of the public's infatuation with assessing the President's first 100 days. Describing his own arbitrary evaluation, he introduced Colbert's 'First 14 Monday's'. His mocking of political and media pundits continues to be one of the most original and enjoyable creations on TV.

I was recently interviewed again by ChannelNewsAsia to assess Obama's first 100 days through the lens of branding. Successful branding is about building trust, and a country's reputation is really an indication of how much it can be trusted. For over two hundred years the US has stood for a consistent set of values and beliefs, even as different political parties ran the government. These include: constitutional rights, rule of law, human rights, and a larger, far more hopeful notion that the US always stood for opportunity, where anybody could succeed irrespective of their background. This latter point is still, to me, the most compelling, meaningful, and motivating ideal represented by the US. Having lived in Southeast Asia for more than 5 years, even with the spectacular growth, changing political conditions, and improved living standards across most of the region, there is still a strong distinction between the privileged few and all others. One's pedigree and background in this region still matters more than one's potential, although more people are indeed gaining access to opportunity. Nevertheless, many societies here 'select' those with the greatest potential for success, relegating those with less education or economic wealth to secondary status.

Back to my point about the US's values...in the past 8 years, many of these values have been called into question. Of course, the US has faced economic crises before, as well as social crises, and succeeded. But the past 8 years were the first time that a crisis of confidence in the US--a loss of trust if you will--reached epidemic proportions globally.

Obama’s first 100 days signal an aggressive effort to turn this around. To my mind, these efforts should be applauded, irrespective of one’s political affiliation. His administration is handling multiple challenges and crises remarkably well, although I admit it is still far too early to claim victory. But I give Obama an 'A' for effort. The details of how to implement new domestic and foreign policies can and will be debated and negotiated behind the scenes. But as with any successful brand, the public face must match the internal efforts, and both political parties must find greater common ground. Obama must continue to find ways to gain support from more Republicans. This is where Obama has both an opportunity and a big risk. Opportunity in that most people want him to succeed. Risk because a few, vocal (shrill!) people, are actually hoping he fails. Furthermore, the Republican leadership is doing nothing constructive to participate in meaningful change or react to the extreme elements in their party. Instead, they are sticking to outdated slogans and simplistic beliefs.  This creates press and drama, but contributes nothing to making the US better off. 

How Obama responds to the opposition will be a key test in the next 100 days, and beyond.

Innovation and Speed in 2009

The words for the coming year are 'Innovation' and 'Speed'. From new government programs around the world designed to mitigate the effects of the current financial meltdown to investment in green technology to businesses doing more with less as they attempt to grow with smaller budgets, innovation will be key. We've seen the early stages already. Since the financial crisis hit, governments everywhere were put in the unexpected position of determining how best to improve liquidity and free up the credit markets. Because of the rapid-fire nature of the crisis, there wasn't the luxury of months or years to plan, making speed another key element. Decisions had to be made and signals had to be sent to nervous markets that governments would step-in to provide stability and reassurance. As obvious as these needs are, the sheer suddenness of the combined actions around the world (with the exception of Germany, which remains one of the few holdouts) compelled governments to act quickly, in the absence of complete information. While these are not ideal conditions to spur innovation, crisis often produces surprisingly positive side-effects, which we will hopefully see unfold in 2009 as governments focus on stabilizing the world economy. 

In the U.S., innovation looks to take many forms as well, including Obama's plans to invest in new technologies designed to address multiple environmental and energy-related issues, development of a more cohesive national education structure emphasizing the critical stage of early childhood education, new healthcare initiatives, and domestic infrastructure projects. With most of these issues, the private sector is already reshaping itself to encourage additional innovation. Some venture capitalists in Silicon Valley (and elsewhere) are redirecting capital toward green innovation and education initiatives. Businesses are gearing up in anticipation of the domestic infrastructure investments. Regulators are focusing on designing better and more innovative approaches to oversight of financial markets. None of these innovations and potential changes will come easily. To succeed, the tendency of bureaucrats and business leaders to protect their territory needs to change, embracing open and honest discussion instead. New initiatives and plans need to be vetted by the passionate forces of debate. But the debate itself must not succumb to typical analysis/paralysis, otherwise innovation will stall, the economy will continue to suffer, and progress overall will halt. Just as the events from September 2008 forced leaders from government and the private sector to think and act with extraordinary rapidity (and yes, there were still patches of uneven response--but that is typical in innovation-driven situations), the effort to solve the many crises confronting us must be pursued with similar urgency. There will never be a perfect plan to solve each of the various challenges, so we should not wait for one. Instead, having a general sense of direction, an innate optimism, and rapid-fire execution, are the right combination of factors to get us going. To make this all happen will require an open dialog that encourages multiple points of view, each with an eye toward a future of transformation. 

There is a painfully obvious and very recent lesson that should serve to guide government and private sector leaders in the months ahead: do not do what the former Big 3 automakers have done. As these companies teeter on the edge of failure, they have been neither innovative or speedy. Their recent problems are merely the manifestation of decades of bad decisions that have finally come back to haunt them. Their leaders have been stunningly blind to conditions around them, evidenced most egregiously by the CEOs' disastrous first meeting with Congress several weeks ago when each of them flew on corporate jets to beg for government loans-symbolic of their detachment from reality. And in this instance, perception was reality. The Big 3 automakers are perceived to be out of touch (and almost out of time) and lo and behold, their leaders reinforced this view. Almost comically, after being raked over the coals by Congress for their insensitivity (and lack of sensible turnaround plans) these same CEOs returned a couple of weeks later, each having driven from Detroit to Washington DC in a hybrid car, as if to say "now we get it". Unfortunately for them, the hybrid car gesture smacked of insincerity and it was clearly too little, too late. To make innovation and speed work to our advantage will require leaders in all sectors of society to actually 'get it' the first time. I am optimistic this will happen. But don't wait for perfection.

The Auto Bailout: Throwing Good Money After Bad

I am an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama. But I am not enthusiastic about the auto industry bailout. The Big 3 have had 40+ years to figure out that the world was moving in a different direction, yet they somehow failed to adjust. Sure, US consumers bought SUVs in droves throughout the 90s and early part of this decade--auto makers were merely responding to articulated demand--which is low-hanging fruit, but hardly the stuff that inspires innovation. Building latent demand is the key, and all 3 US auto makers have failed in this area, miserably. Furthermore, going after the low hanging fruit does not remove the auto makers' responsibility for being innovative by developing cars that are far friendlier to the environment.  In fact, the opposite happened. Whenever states enacted stricter environmental laws individually, the auto makers often sued to get the laws repealed, as opposed to finding creative ways to develop cars that met the new regulations. When lawsuits become a substitute for good judgment (or, rather, are a shield to hide bad judgment), something is wrong. I am not a fan of seeing hundreds of thousands of people out of work. That is a tragedy. But there is little compelling evidence that the auto makers will use the bailout money, if it comes, wisely. Instead, the money will simply delay the inevitable: the death, or certainly the growing irrelevancy, of US auto makers, so the auto workers will still be out of a job, but just a few months later. It is time to see bold, new transportation innovations (not just auto makers, but rail and other forms of public transport). Congress should allocate more money for these types of initiatives, rather than supporting auto makers well past their prime.

8 for 8 in 08

Phelps did it. The Olympic mens 4 x 100 medley just ended with the US team taking gold and setting a new world record in the process (Phelps' 7th world record of this Olympics with the 8th race a new Olympic record), Australia won the silver and Japan the bronze. It has been an amazing week for a truly one of a kind athlete. The coming months and years will hopefully see Phelps serve as a great ambassador for the sport of swimming, raising its profile and elevating Phelps to a true icon. Congratulations to Michael Phelps...what a remarkable accomplishment and how fortunate we are to witness this historic event.

Overall, the Games thus far have been exciting. The Chinese athletes have been impressive, as expected--from diving to gymnastics--their performances have been superb. There have been surprises, such as the wonderful victory by Oussama Mellouli from Tunisia in the men's 1500m in swimming. There have also been dramatic wins, such as track & field's Usain Bolt's other-worldly 9.69 100m victory last night (other-worldly because his time was not wind-aided and he eased up before the finish when he knew he had won...another tenth could have come off the record had he stayed at full-speed). There have been testaments to hope, such as Dara Torres' impressive performance, particularly in today's women's 50m swimming final where she won silver, losing by only 1/100th of a second to Britta Steffen of Germany. At age 41, Dara shows that anything is possible.

While I am a huge fan of the Olympics and the incredible dedication every Olympic athlete exhibits, my heart supports the US athletes--I can't help it since that is where I am from. But as I watched innumerable events and many medal ceremonies during the first week, I believe the Australian athletes display the best qualities of Olympic ideals. Every Australian athlete I have seen, whether in medal contention or not, was smiling and enthusiastic--signaling how much they love being part of the Games. Those smiles and obvious exuberance set a great example of why sport is such a force for good and the Olympics are the world's best event for seeing such genuine behavior on display.  Congratulations to all in this first week and let the second week be just as magnificent.

 

New Book-'The Olympic Games Effect'

The Olympic Games begin today and, for much of the next 17 days, the world's attention will be turned toward Beijing. Simultaneously, my latest book, 'The Olympic Games Effect' will be published in the next few days. Visit www.amazon.com to order the book. Interest in the book has been extraordinary.Visit my television, radio, and print interviews to learn more.

Book Overview

The Olympic Games attracts fans from all over the world with a diverse range of interests, from a passionate love of sports, to fervent nationalism, to the thrill of athletic competition. This book explains and examines why companies vie to be Olympic sponsors and the tangible and intangible returns they reap for their investment.

Starting with a brief history of the Olympics, from the Ancient Greeks to now (including interesting parallels between the ancient and modern games), the book shows why and how the Olympic Games have become one of the world’s most powerful brands, and the resulting impact for companies that are Olympic sponsors.

You might also visit BrandNewView to learn more detailed information about the book, including reviews. Please blog to discuss further. More to come!

Unblocked...sort of

Following my post yesterday it was reported by various media (BBC, International Herald Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, among others) that Chinese authorities had unblocked many of the previously blocked websites, providing access for journalists to Amnesty International and the Chinese language version of the BBC, for example. Sites related to the Falun Gong remain banned and conflicting reports indicate that the unblocked sites are accessible only to journalists and not the average person. At the same time, private individuals reported having spotty access to previously banned sites. Kevan Gosper, Chief of the IOC Press Commission, who stated in an interview the other day that a side-deal had been agreed to between the IOC and Beijing officials, reaffirmed his belief that an informal 'deal' existed, although definitive proof has not been provided at this time. Chinese President Hu Jintao concurrently stated politicizing the Olympics would not work and should be avoided to honor the Olympic spirit. Let's hope that this unblocking is permanent, allowing the Olympics to be the center of attention. As for avoiding the politicizing of the Olympics...actions speak louder than words.