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.

The Complexity of a Brighter Future

As an American living in Singapore for over 5 years, it is interesting to see how other parts of the world view the US. Obama is proving to be an important catalyst for reshaping international opinion about the US for now, and hopefully for the better over the long-term. But this goodwill will be short-lived if the economy staggers along due to insufficient fiscal stimulus. Here in Asia there is a great deal of enthusiasm about China’s future prospects, and many regional economies are running at a different (higher) energy level than their more developed counterparts in the west. Many people here so far find Obama refreshing and a departure for the better from Bush. But the US is increasingly discussed in past-tense terms. However, our complete demise is not desired because, more than any other reason, it would destabilize regional economic growth. At the same time, a resurgent US is increasingly viewed as less important than having a more confident and politically stable China. For the US to have a chance at recapturing some or all of its credibility and influence, Obama has to succeed at more than international PR, and his economic policies are currently the area that will determine his ultimate success. While I am impressed with his ambition to tackle several problems simultaneously (a US President that can actually multi-task!), I am worried his fiscal policies are not ambitious enough. 

Overseas, ‘Brand US’ has taken a painful and punishing beating, not just economically, but politically and even at the individual business level, which is making the day to day pursuit of business a very different challenge for US companies than it was in years past. US CEOs and their companies are viewed as suspect (rightly so in many cases), despite the majority of global brands being US-based, and regional business assertiveness here in Asia is on the rise. Hopefully, this will motivate US companies to reconsider how to compete. But they cannot do it alone...US policies must demonstrate that we ‘get it’ and that, as a country, we can be responsible. This is going to take far more than a few years, political charisma, and a patched-together economic recovery. The psychological damage is deeper than the US acknowledges, very real, and harder (if not impossible) to undo in the short-term. 

Challenges in Asia are of a different sort: while there is increasing economic transparency, there is still poor political transparency and inconsistent business transparency. Many countries in Asia, despite enthusiasm for their various economic futures, will struggle if the political institutions are not more accountable to the public. As long as people depend on the state for the answers, a more vibrant, problem solving culture will never fully develop--and this is more than just a government issue. It also permeates many regional education systems. Lateral thinking is in short supply, and inquiry is often stalled. People are educated to solve problems efficiently with maximum data (deductive reasoning), rather than thinking about effectiveness, making decisions despite minimal data, and potential implications (inductive reasoning).   

The US faces another challenge: Asian governments have spent the past decade quietly yet purposefully investing in industry and infrastructure, creating the foundation for long-term economic prosperity (regional airports, ports, highways, and city-downtowns are almost uniformly amazingly modern, even spectacular—imagine someone saying that about JFK, LAX, and many US bridges). If Asian governments solve the political transparency issue, they will have far greater impact in guiding global affairs, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But if the US does not redouble its efforts to reinvest in industry and infrastructure, then its political transparency will carry little weight.  This highlights a different problem in the US: fear of government authority. And soap box posturing from the right saying that nationalizing banks is the beginning of socialism only fuels this fear. It also completely misses the point: temporary government rescue, even ownership, can help restore confidence, allowing the private sector to think about and develop innovative ways to create real value for the future-rather than freezing operations while awaiting freer capital markets. Ultimately, the US will never be a country that depends on the state for all the answers, which is an important cultural distinction and a potential long-term competitive advantage. But only if the US government is more aggressive in the short-term. Such an interesting dilemma the US faces! 

The US, and everyone within, must continue to thoughtfully challenge existing assumptions and authority, and more fully consider the implications of US economic and political policies, despite imperfect information. There is far more at stake economically than just finding a quick fix for the banking system-- a wide range of economic sectors are in need, and US leadership is at stake as a consequence. 

Toward a Better Future

What a stunning 12 months it has been, with the last 2 months particularly unnerving. Temptation toward panic is one response. Or temptation toward a better future is another. More specifically, we cannot quickly undo the economic mess or magically make asset values return to pre-September 2008 levels. But we can make important steps that produce sustained progress. Let's look at the US. As Tom McCabe, a friend of mine and highly respected business leader here in Asia said recently, Asian economies have invested over $2 trillion in infrastructure development since the start of this decade that have raised living standards and produced millions of high value jobs, while the US invested in financial trading services that did little or nothing to support the capital investment and growth needs of companies. We now know the outcome of these divergent investment strategies. Interestingly, President Obama has presented a budget to Congress that invests heavily in infrastructure, healthcare, energy and education--long overdue sectors of the US economy. Predictably, Washington DC is gearing for a fight as many conservatives are apoplectic at the size of the government spending proposals and the deficits. I am concerned that pork barrel spending is still a problem in the current budget. But endless debate and ideological paralysis will not be productive. We have learned that the past decade of unreported Iraq spending, coupled with inconsistent domestic investment, tax cuts, poor regulatory oversight, and a generally directionless set of economic priorities have produced the present meltdown that is affecting markets everywhere. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist has been a vocal proponent of even larger fiscal stimulus than that proposed by Obama, because the US faces a $2-3 trillion GDP gap. While the news currently is bad and likely to get worse, the US appears to be planting the seeds for a far stronger economic future, albeit one that is a decade away from hitting on all cylinders. In the meantime, we should avoid panic and look toward a better future.

Sri Lanka's Cricket Team

Today's ambush shooting of Sri Lanka's cricket team is sad and horrifying. 7 cricket team members and an assistant coach were injured, and at least 1 police officer escorting the team was killed. I really don't understand the mentality of a group of people thinking that such a cruel act makes sense and is justified. I can't imagine what possible outcome the attackers envisioned, but it is fortunate that there weren't more people killed. This is inexplicable and beyond comprehension.

The Moment is Here

At times the journey from Obama's announcement 2 years ago to run for the Presidency to the inauguration seemed like it might never end. But the inauguration came and went. The spectacle was heightened by expectation. "This is Obama's moment" was among the sentiments. What would his equivalent of Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" grand rhetoric be? As it turns out, his speech was less electrifying than anticipated, but (from my point of view) perfectly tuned to the times. With 2 wars, Guantanamo, chaos in the Middle East, Iran and North Korea flaunting their nuclear ambitions, a global economy run off the rails, major environmental issues, and host of domestic challenges, soaring statements filled with lofty ideals would have been out of place. What has impressed me about Obama the past 2 years has been his steady, consistent, "no drama Obama" style that conveys confidence. He has used his oratorical gifts wisely over the past year, giving arguably his finest speech last Spring when he discussed race in response to the Reverend Wright flare-up (I thought this speech more attuned to reality than his remarks at the 2004 Democratic convention), yet also showing us that sweeping emotion is not required in all instances. Sometimes we just want to see that the guy at the top is in touch with reality. When I watched his inaugural speech, I will admit that there was a tiny part of me that wanted a more emotionally stirring call to cause. But as the speech progressed, what I heard was something more important--a call to action. By telling us that we must adjust to the world around us, he was also telling us that we can no longer live in an American cocoon, ignorant of the challenges confronting those beyond our shores. In effect, he was politely yet pointedly telling Americans to pull our collective heads out of the sand and become active participants in solving the challenges that confront us. I haven't felt this good about the future of the US in years.

Obama's Current Economic Plan

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist from Princeton and columnist for the New York Times (NYT)/International Herald Tribune (IHT), wrote a piece the other day about the disappointing size of Obama's economic rescue plan. Calling it the 'Obama Gap', Krugman asserts that despite Obama's strong rhetoric, his plan falls short of what is needed. With estimates that every $1 of public investment increases GDP by $1.50, only 60% of Obama's $750 billion+ plan is for public spending. The reason this is not enough is that we may face a potential economic shortfall of $1-$2 trillion (or more). Krugman argues that even with a multiplier effect, Obama's plan is insufficient (Paul Krugman: The Obama Gap). This is partly because part of Obama's plan, in an effort to court Republican support, includes tax breaks. Yet many economists agree that every dollar in tax relief produces less than a dollar in stimulus spending. In another article in the IHT (No Consensus on Whether Obama's Plan Will Work), the authors contend that tax relief works only under certain conditions (individuals use the money to save and/or pay down debt, thereby limiting in the impact on economic activity that leads to growth) and that the current global challenges are anything but certain, or normal. In an interesting related article (US Debt Losing Its Appeal in China), China's own economic woes are reducing their appetite for US debt, usually in the form of massive investments in short-term US Treasury securities. This is important for a couple of key reasons. First, because China's short-term Treasury purchases support the debt that funds long-term deficit payments. With reduced demand from China for short-term US Treasury securities, interest rates may rise (i.e. high demand boosts Treasury prices and reduces interest rates whereas low demand does the opposite), which affects a wide range of debt-holders, from government borrowers to home buyers. The impact? Well, with the potential for rising interest rates, the consumer appetite for housing will be reduced further, which will affect the economy negatively, beyond the already severe impact of the recent housing woes. However, there is an important consideration in all this. The housing crisis that precipitated a good chunk of the US's current economic problems was partly the result of loan programs that enabled, even encouraged, consumers to buy homes they could not afford, creating lower-quality debt. So while China's reduction in US Treasury purchases may well cause interest rates to rise, the long-term affect may help correct the US housing market by 'forcing' home buyers to purchase only those homes within their means. Ultimately, this means the quality of the debt will rise, since there will be higher confidence that borrowers will be able to repay their loans. As for Obama's economic plan being too small--Krugman makes important points. In normal times, enormous deficits are problematic for future generations. But in abnormal times, such as those we currently face, we need larger public spending to spur job creation, improve infrastructure (which is an important long-term capital investment) and improve overall confidence. An important question is how the debt, even in Obama's 'undersized economic plan', will be funded. The even larger question of whether Obama's plan will even work remains unknown. But at least the emphasis is on the right component for now: increased public spending. Let's hope that politics take a back seat to economic necessity.