Posted on

Marketing in a Downturn

Seth Godin writes about “marketing in a recession” :
The challenge for marketers is to figure out how to change the story they are living so that their customers can change the story they tell themselves. What you make, where you make it, who makes it, how it’s priced and sold and … it all adds up to a perception. If you change these elements the story will change too.
His point is that Starbucks becomes the indulgence of someone who has just traded down to a small rental apartment. Gone are the days of $4.00 coffee just for the heck of it.
I think Starbucks is busy changing their story. They’re trying to be a new, upscale McDonald’s – rapidly working to add in a “drive-in have a happy meal” component to their business model. The trouble is in the demographics. Bill Tancer at TIME tells us that “the Big Mac customer base has remained relatively stable, while Starbucks’ coffee-drinkers have diversified. It used to be that Starbucks attracted customers from a small, elite segment of the country; now, its visitors pervade many more segments across America.”
From my own observations at the local Target, I see far more customer buying ICEEs rather than Starbucks coffees. This is the “threat of substitution” that is always around the corner, no matter how good your product is. Seems like the days of mass-luxury are over.
So where does retail find its consumer, er, citizen? Turns out they’re not citizens at all – you’ve got to sell overseas. India and China are experiencing a huge boom in luxury, thanks to an explosion in middle class prosperity. The fortune is in the middle and the bottom of the pyramid.
And if you can’t reach those consumers? I wrote about that in an earlier post about advertising in a recession.

Posted on

Jeffrey Immelt: India versus China – Trust is a Global Issue for GE

I was talking to Bill Dunk this morning, and we got to the topic of trust as an issue in global business.
I told him I’d seen a video in which Jeff Immelt said something to the effect that in China the concept of win-win is an issue, whereas India is much better at partnerships.
Immediately, Bill dug up this article for me – an interview with Nani Beccalli-Falco, GE International’s chief executive.
From the article:
This is a difficult challenge and it is one that Beccalli-Falco speaks of with surprising candour. He talks of the problems of striking deals in China, where, he says, the values of equity and fairness implied in the West’s ‘win/win’ approach to business are replaced by a more naked self-interest. “In China, they have a tendency to think ‘win for China, OK for you’,” he says. “It makes forming partnerships difficult.”
If you want to get a global perspective on business, you must subscribe (for free) to Bill Dunk’s Global Province >>
And yes, I finally dug up the video:

Watch Immelt’s interview with Rajat Gupta, and listen carefully as Immelt talks about India versus China – right at the very end of the video:
“China has a hard time with win-win. That’s a problem over the long term.India’s much better. There’s a much better sense that India can be a real ally…”
Wow.
China’s got the Olympics this summer… wonder if they’ll let anyone else win a medal…

Posted on

Interview: Stephen M. R. Covey on “The Speed of Trust”

We did this interview a year ago, but he’s finally (and deservedly) hitting the best-seller lists – thanks to a strong internet-based campaign. The book >>

Why do you claim that “Trust” is the key leadership competency of the new global economy?
Covey: If you look at the nature of the world today, a foundational condition in Thomas Friedman’s flat world is the presence of trust. Put simply, today’s increasingly global marketplace puts a premium on true collaboration, teaming, relationships and partnering, and all these interdependencies require trust. In the book I point out that partnerships based on trust outperform partnerships based on contracts. Compliance does not foster innovation, trust does. You can’t sustain long-term innovation, for example, in a climate of distrust.

In issue after issue, the data is clear: high trust organizations outperform low-trust organizations. Total return to shareholders in high trust organizations is almost three times higher than the return in low trust organizations.

So we assert that trust is clearly a key competency. A competency or skill that can be learned, taught, and improved and one that talent can be screened for.

Trust is the one thing that affects everything else you’re doing. It’s a performance multiplier which takes your trajectory upwards, for every activity you engage in, from strategy to execution.

How do you identify a high-trust or low-trust organizations?
Covey: Trust is a powerful accelerator to performance and when trust goes up, speed also goes up while cost comes down — producing what we call a trust dividend. How do you know if you have a high trust culture? By observing the behavior of your people. In high trust, high performance companies, we observe the following behaviors:

• Information is shared openly
• Mistakes are tolerated and encouraged as a way of learning
• The culture is innovative and creative
• People are loyal to those who are absent
• People talk straight and confront real issues
• There is real communication and real collaboration
• People share credit abundantly and openly celebrate each others’ success
• There are few “meetings after the meetings”
• Transparency is a practiced value
• People are candid and authentic
• There is a high degree of accountability
• There is palpable vitality and energy–people can feel the positive momentum

Another very visible indicator is the behavior of your customers and suppliers. What is your customer churn rate? Do you have a history of long-term customer and supplier relationships? What is your reputation or brand equity in your marketplace?

Conversely, when the trust is low, there’s a trust tax which changes your trajectory downwards. In our work with organizations, we find that low-trust, low-performance organizations typically exhibit cultural behaviors like:

• Facts are manipulated or distorted
• Information and knowledge are withheld and hoarded
• People spin the truth to their advantage
• Getting the credit is very important
• New ideas are openly resisted and stifled
• Mistakes are covered up or covered over
• Most people are involved in a blame game, badmouthing others
• There is an abundance of “water cooler” talk
• There are numerous “meetings after the meetings”
• There are many “undiscussables”
• People tend to over-promise and under-deliver
• There are a lot of violated expectations for which people make many excuses
• People pretend bad things aren’t happening or are in denial
• The energy level is low
• People often feel unproductive tension–sometimes even fear

These behaviors are all taxes on performance.

The work we do is to establish trust as your organizational operating system. That’s a high-tech metaphor, but it’s appropriate. We know how trust works, how to measure it, how to establish it, grow it, extend it, and sustain it – with all stakeholders.

Why is trust such a hidden variable to many otherwise competent managers?
Covey: Unfortunately, too many executives believe the myths about trust. Myths like how trust is soft and is merely a social virtue. The reality is that trust is hard-edged and is an economic driver.

For instance, strategy is important, but trust is the hidden variable. On paper you can have clarity around your objectives, but in a low-trust environment, your strategy won’t be executed. We find the trust tax shows up in a variety of ways including fraud, bureaucracy, politics, turnover, and disengagement, where people quit mentally, but stay physically. The trust tax is real.

There are many myths about trust, and in my book I present them in a table your readers may find helpful:

Screen Shot 2015-04-23 at 9.13.12 AM.png

So trust is measurable? quantifiable?
Covey: Absolutely, trust is measurable. Smart organizations measure trust in three key ways: 1) actual trust “levels”; 2) the “components” or dimensions that comprise trust; and 3) the “effects”, or impact, of trust.
We have found that one very simple way to measure trust levels is to ask one direct question and roll it up and down throughout the organization. For internal stakeholders ask: “Do you trust your boss?” to employees at all levels of an organization. For external stakeholders, like customers or suppliers, you might ask them: “Do you trust our sales representative or account manager?” These are simple, direct questions that tell us more about our culture than perhaps any other question we might ask.
Now, wouldn’t it be great if “trust” showed up on the financial statements as either a ‘tax’ or a ‘dividend’? Organizations would then use resources to eliminate the tax or create a larger dividend! Although a high trust or low trust culture doesn’t literally show up on financial statements, it does show up in the following ways, which are measurable, observable and economically relevant – all of which make a strong “business case for trust”:
Screen Shot 2015-04-23 at 9.13.20 AM.png
What are the competencies, the behaviors that build trust?
Covey: Trust too often has been pigeonholed as based on character and integrity alone. There’s nothing wrong with that, and that is clearly the foundation, but it’s insufficient.
Trust is a function of both character and competence. Of course you can’t trust someone who lacks integrity, but hear this: if someone is honest but they can’t perform, you’re not going to trust them either. You won’t trust them to get the job done.
That’s one reason why trust has a soft image- because it has been severed from competence and results.
So how does one apply trust to branding?
Covey: When I look at a brand, a brand is nothing more or less than trust with the customer, trust with the marketplace. The principle behind a brand is reputation. The brand stands for a promise and the ability to deliver on that promise. And in that promise is a company’s character and competence, its reputation.
From the character side you start with integrity–honesty, congruence, humility and courage. The courage to be open, to stand for something, to make and keep commitments. Then there’s intent–is there a genuine concern for people, purposes and society as a whole or is profit your sole motive? What’s the company’s agenda? And how does it behave? Sometimes poor behavior is simply bad execution of good intent.
On the competence side, you start with your capabilities–talents, skills, the ability to deliver. Is your company staying relevant, are you continually improving, do you have the right technologies to stay ahead of your competition? Brands need to reinvent themselves from time to time to stay relevant. Finally, look at your results. Your company and your brands are constantly measured based on past performance, present performance and anticipated future performance.
These four dimensions–integrity, intent, capabilities and results–make up the credibility and reputation of your brand. When the trust is high, you get the trust dividend. Investors invest in brands people trust. Consumers buy more from companies they trust, they spend more with companies they trust, they recommend companies they trust, and they give companies they trust the benefit of the doubt when things go wrong. The list goes on and on. On the Internet, a trusted brand versus an untrusted brand–the differences could not be clearer, you only give your credit card number to those you trust. And look what happens when a brand gets diluted or polluted or compromised, we see how fast consumers, and investors, turn away. They quit buying.
These same principles apply equally to companies and individuals.
What about the social responsibility of business? Is this part of the trust equation?
Covey: Initially many companies may move into this arena for PR purposes. More out of fear of not being in the arena, than really participating with their souls. But there are huge benefits that flow from this – the difference it makes with your employees first, then your customers, your suppliers, your distributors, your investors.
The distrust we see all around is suspicion, a response to the corporate scandals and vicious downward cycles of cynicism. But when a company focuses on the principle of contribution for all stakeholders, that becomes good business. Executives need to understand the economic benefits of this trust dividend, especially when the behavior is real, not artificially or superficially created as PR to manipulate trust. We will see more and more companies moving in this direction because it makes economic sense, period.
Trust varies by geography, as you’ve pointed out in your book. How do companies build trust globally?
Covey: There’s no question that trust issues are global issues. There’s also a country tax. The Edelman Trust Barometer tells us, for example, that trust is often based on country of origin. US companies are being taxed in Europe, in Germany, France and England, for example. How can companies like UPS improve their trust rankings?
Trust can be rebuilt. So how do you build trust? By your behavior. We’ve identified 13 behaviors which build trust:
1. Talk Straight
2. Demonstrate Respect
3. Create Transparency
4. Right Wrongs
5. Show Loyalty
6. Deliver Results
7. Get Better
8. Confront Reality
9. Clarify Expectations
10. Practice Accountability
11. Listen First
12. Keep Commitments
13. Extend Trust
Companies need to have a strong promise, because the promise builds hope. Keeping the promise is what builds trust.
My father has an expression: “You can’t talk yourself out of a problem you behaved yourself into.” So it is with trust.
Sometimes it takes a little time, but you can accelerate the process by declaring your intent and signaling your behavior, so others can see it.
People and companies can learn these behaviors. It’s not a simple process which happens overnight. But it is a systemic, cultural process which can happen one leader at a time, one division at a time, one company at a time, and you can see the behavior shifting toward authentic, real trust-building behaviors as opposed to the more common counterfeit behavior of spin and hidden agendas and the like which tend to dissipate and diminish trust.
Screen Shot 2015-04-23 at 9.13.36 AM.png

Is there a danger in being too trusting or even gullible? < /div>

Covey: One thing about trust is that everyone’s for it.
However, there are three big objections which come up. The first one is that trust is a social virtue, to which I say no, it’s much more than that; it’s a hard-edged economic driver. Secondly, and we hear this all the time: “we can’t do anything about trust, it’s either there or it’s not there.” This too is a fallacy. Trust is a competency. It’s something you can get good at. It’s a strength you personally, and your team and your company can master. Being good at it will elevate every other strength you have.
The third complaint goes along these lines: “We’ve been burned before. We can’t trust everyone. Are you suggesting we trust everybody?” That’s where I suggest you exercise what I call “SmartTrust.” Most leaders have been burned before, so they become distrusting. Our society is that way. After Enron and WorldCom, we pass legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley to force compliance, raising the “tax” on all businesses. The question is, “is there a third alternative?” An alternative where you combine a high propensity to trust with good analysis and judgment, so we can really assess the circumstances, the risk, the credibility of the people involved, so we can extend trust, and build into that trust a stewardship or responsibility.
If you’re not trusted, you tend to reciprocate with distrust. That’s how the vicious cycle of mistrust starts and spirals downward.
There is a risk in trusting people, but the greater risk is not trusting people.
SmartTrust says you look at the opportunity, the risk and the credibility of the people involved. And you add to that verification and analysis. So you trust and verify. As opposed to verify, then trust!
Let’s look at Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffet. I mention them in the book as an example of a high-trust company, about the acquisition they made based on a hand shake without due diligence.
But did you know that’s how the entire company operates?
They have a 192,000 employees with 42 different wholly-owned companies. How many people do you think work at corporate headquarters? ‘
Seventeen!
Why? Because they choose to operate in a “seamless web of deserved trust” as Charlie Munger calls it.
This is real. It’s not blind trust, but smart trust.
Thanks so much.
Posted on

Kevin Coyne’s 21 Questions for Developing New Products

The December 2007 HBR had an interesting article by Kevin Coyne called Breakthrough Thinking from Inside the Box. There’s far more to this article than just the 21 questions, so I urge you to go grab it here!
The approach Coyne and friends describe supposedly works better than brainstorming or strict quantitative analysis >>
“De-average” buyers and users
Which customers use or purchase our product in the most unusual way?
Do any customers need vastly more or less sales and service attention than most?
For which customers are the support costs (order entry, tracking, customer-specific design) either unusually high or unusually low?
Could we still meet the needs of a significant subset of customers if we stripped 25% of the hard or soft costs out of our product?
Who spends at least 50% of what our product costs to adapt it to their specific needs?
Explore unexpected successes
Who uses our product in ways we never expected or intended?
Who uses our product in surprisingly large quantities?
Look beyond the boundaries of our business
Who else is dealing with the same generic problem as we are but for an entirely different reason? How have they addressed it?
What major breakthroughs in efficiency or effectiveness have we made in our business that could be applied in another industry?
What information about customers and product use is created as a by-product of our business that could be the key to radically improving the economics of another business?
Examine binding constraints
What is the biggest hassle of purchasing or using our product?
What are some examples of ad hoc modifications that customers have made to our product?
For which current customers is our product least suited?
For what particular usage occasions is our product least suited?
Which customers does the industry prefer not to serve, and why?
Which customers could be major users, if only we could remove one specific barrier we’ve never previously considered?
Imagine perfection
How would we do things differently if we had perfect information about our buyers, usage, distribution channels, and so on?
How would our product change if it were tailored for every customer?
Revisit the premises underlying our processes and products
Which technologies embedded in our product have changed the most since the product was last redesigned?
Which technologies underlying our production processes have changed the most since we last rebuilt our manufacturing and distribution systems?
Which customers’ needs are shifting most rapidly? What will they be in five years?
Finally, if you want to hire Kevin Coyne, he’s available here >>

Posted on

Everybody’s Going Surfin’ – Catching the Innovation Wave

The latest in a series of Innovation on the Edge articles to appear in BusinessWeek, Catching the Innovation Wave is a clever lesson in how innovation occurs at the relevant edge.

John Hagel and JSB ask executives to:
1. “find relevant edges that will test and push their current performance.”
2. “attract motivated groups of people to these edges to work together around challenging performance issues.”
3. “recognize that the people who are likely to be attracted to the edge are big risk-takers.”
4. “recognize that the edge fosters not just risk-taking, but very different cultures that are also ‘edgy.’ ”
5. “find ways to appropriate insights from adjacent disciplines and even more remote areas of activity.”
6. “bring users and developers of technology close together.”
7. understand “the loose practice network that evolved around big wave surfing.” Performance breakthroughs occur “when seasoned practitioners engage with the technology, especially in close-knit communities, and evolve their practices to better use it…”
Watch the surfing slideshow here, and read a longer version of the article on John’s blog >>

Posted on

Double Loop Marketing: The Blogging Model

Almost every day I get an email from someone asking for “the simplest way to use double loop marketing.”
And I ask them: “Are you blogging yet?”
The simplest form of double loop marketing is the double loop blogging model. It is best used to establish a thought-leadership position – generally embodied by the CEO or a senior executive in the company who is either an expert in the field already, or wishes to establish themselves as one.
It works for large enterprises talking to the masses although it is more effective for SMBs and non-profits targeting a specific audience in their industry.

The four components of the double-loop blogging model are as follows:
1. Thought-Leadership Blog
Goal: Build mindshare
This is the most important component of the double loop marketing model in terms of attention management. The blog helps you establish your credentials and build a relationship with readers. With a few exceptions, it helps if you blog regularly covering topics which entertain and educate. Relax, and be yourself. Be authentic. Don’t blog if you see it as a chore.
2. Vendor Site
Goal: Sell products and services
This is the “second loop” component of the double loop marketing model. The job here is conversion to sales. If you don’t make it easy for customers to buy, they wont. The focus here is helping customers buy with the least amount of hassle. Trust is established through the testimonials (and case studies) of name brand clients. The buying process must be as simple and clean as possible. Support and post-sales interactions are critical to building profitability with follow-on sales. The post-sales funnel must be designed before you sell your first product.
3. Newsletter
Goal: Trust Building & Conversion
Your newsletter is the best way to build loyalty and drive prospects back to your “vendor site” every month. Despite the rumors you may have heard, email is far from dead. Our clients experience a 25-30% boost in revenue each month from their newsletters. The newsletter must be a thought-leadership vehicle, not a sales-driven tool. This makes it an effective vehicle for viral marketing: everytime you send out your newsletter, more people opt-in and become a part of your list. This is the simplest and most effective way to escape the tyranny of search engines and the PPC game.
4. Management
Goal: Process Optimization & Ecosystem Positioning
The management of the three elements mentioned above is a process unto itself. It’s function is optimization – finding and turning prospects into profitable customers at the lowest possible cost.
This component includes devising an ecosystem positioning strategy for the blog, conversion strategies for the vendor site, and opt-in and delivery strategies for the newsletter. All aspects of execution must be tracked and measured against a baseline to continuously improve performance.
Pretty simple, isn’t it? So why aren’t you blogging yet?!

Posted on

Advertising in a Recession: Bye-Bye Magazines and TV?

The Economist tells us that Hyundai almost yanked its Super Bowl advertising due to economic concerns. At the last minute, they decided to stay put.
Yank it, I say. And spend the money advertising on the Internet!
The article goes on to tell us that: “Marketing spending is one of the first things companies decide to cut when faced with slowing sales.”

This is true, but only when companies don’t understand marketing. Which means despite what Maurice Lévy at Publicis Groupe and Sir Martin Sorrell at WPP are saying, look for a crash in marketing spend.
The NY Times tells us “Forecasters Say Madison Avenue Will Escape a Recession, Just Barely.”
I say they’re wrong.
We know that the research tells us that recessions clearly reward aggressive advertisers and destroy timid ones.
In a study of U.S. recessions, McGraw-Hill Research analyzed 600 companies covering 16 different SIC industries from 1980 through 1985. Results showed [hat tip to MacTech] that business-to-business firms that maintained or increased their advertising expenditures during the 1981-1982 recession averaged significantly higher sales growth, both during the recession and for the following three years, than those that eliminated or decreased advertising. By 1985, sales of companies that were aggressive recession advertisers had risen 256% over those that didn’t keep up their advertising.

Sales for the companies studied were relatively even before the recession, but varied sharply during and after. Companies that cut advertising during both of the recessionary years maintained flat sales during the period and only modest sales growth in the following two years. In contrast, the companies that maintained their advertising experienced significant sales growth throughout the four-year period.

According to the study and contrary to popular belief, cuts in advertising during a recession decrease net income over the long haul. Companies that maintained advertising during the recession enjoyed measurably higher net income gains not only during the recession, but even more so, two years after the recession. This in stark contrast to those companies those companies that cut advertising both years and significantly reduced their profits during the recession, and for years following.
On top of that, my friend Sundar Bharadwaj insists that “the impact of branding on firm performance outweighs both the impact of the competitive environment and resource allocation.”
But that, ladies and gents, was before the Internets.
Now, we’re going to see something we’ve never seen before. The end of advertising as we know it. If the Olympics go south, as they just might especially given the lame coverage we’ve seen in the past, I expect that TV will be hit hardest, followed by print – magazines and periodicals.
Radio will stay flat, and the biggest (and only) gainer will be online advertising.
I’m convinced we’re going to see a boom in marketspace analytics.
Smart money will focus on ecosystems. They’ll know exactly where to advertise to get the best response to drive quarterly results.
Ask yourself:
– Are we in the right ecosystem to begin with?
– Who are we competing against really? (versus who we believe we are competing against)
– Where do we stand vis-à-vis our competitors?
– Who else is in our ecosystem? Are they neutral, friends, or enemies?
– What are the microtrends? Are we gaining or losing on the competition?
– What are the keywords being used to dominate our ecosystem?
– Are there any potential partners in the ecosystem we want to compete in?
– Is our target demographic well represented in our actual ecosystem?
– Do we need an offensive or defensive strategy to challenge the competition? Can we do both?
– Where does the traffic for our ecosystem come from? Is it global?
– What must we do in the short-term to compete? What about the long-term?
– Where should we be advertising?
– Can we dominate our industry ecosystem?
Welcome to ecosystem marketing.

Posted on

Ram Charan: 6 Secrets of Execution


What happens when you work 24X7 for 30 years? You may become Ram Charan.
When I think of Ram I think: “here’s a Peter Drucker without imagination.”
On one hand this is a flaw. On the other hand, it is also his strength. He has shown a remarkable ability to focus like a laser on the business of business. But along the way he may have forgotten how to live. Ram Charan has lived on the road for 30 years – no home, no family. That’s some focus.
Now listen to him on the video as he reveals the “6 secrets of execution.”
The 7th one is obvious: “Life is Work, Work is Life.”

Posted on

PR Nightmare? The World Bank chops down the Amazon rainforest

Here we go again.
The World Bank is busy funding the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, alleges this article in The Independent.
The World Bank has emerged as one of the key backers behind an explosion of cattle ranching in the Amazon, which new research has identified as the greatest threat to the survival of the rainforest.
Nice. I wonder if this story will be picked up by the “corporate media” in this country. Not if Britney Spears has another nervous breakdown…
Now let’s see… who was the bright guy in charge of the World Bank when this policy was put into place?
Why, none other than our good friend Paul D. Wolfowitz – the mastermind who took us into Iraq.
Good luck going green Mr. Zoellick!

Posted on

Foreign Affairs: It’s Judgement, Not Experience!

For those of us who say that Obama doesn’t have the experience to lead us in foreign affairs, let me just remind everyone that it’s not experience that counts but judgment. Unlike Dubya, Rumsfeld, Cheney and gang had plenty of experience, but they lacked judgment.
And it was this lack of judgment which led us into Iraq, diverted our attention and resources from Al-Qaeda, and ultimately caused severe damage to our relationships with allies like Germany, France, and yes, England (just ask Tony Blair). And that doesn’t take into account that we’ve dropped the ball on nuclear non-proliferation, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
So how does a President reach out to mend fences?
It helps if they are liked.
Remember JFK’s “ich bin ein Berliner” line? Well, now the Germans have taken a liking to Obama. Check out these headlines:
– Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama Frankfurter Rundschau
– Der neue Kennedy Berliner Morgenpost
– Dieser schwarze Amerikaner wird der neue Kennedy! Bild
Even the French are into it:
– Obama Superstar Le Monde
In Spain:
Barack Obama: “El cambio ha llegado esta noche a América” El Pais
And how about the UK?
– The first caucus of the revolution Financial Times
– Groundswell for Obama leaves Clinton campaign on the rack Guardian
– The White House? Political earthquake propels Obama towards presidency Independent
– Hope and experience gave Obama the edge Telegraph
– Iowa voters hail ‘turning point’ BBC
Finally, in India, of course the Indians are taking credit for Obama’s victory:
– South Asian organisation a factor in Obama’s success in Iowa Times of India
So much for experience. It’s change, stupid.

Posted on

Brand Destruction 101: How ABC News shot itself in the foot, and how you can watch the latest New Hampshire presidential debate in its entirety

What does it say for ABC when you can download the entire season of full-length episodes of “Desperate Housewives” but not the latest presidential debate held in New Hampshire?
I guarantee you this hurts the ABC brand. What were they thinking? Is this a deliberate “mainstream corporate media” black-out strategy or is this just plain incompetence? Probably both.
ABC News does a great disservice to the American people. Do they think anyone is going to trust Charles Gibson now?
What a joke.
Luckily there are alternatives >>










Score another “win” for YouTube.

Posted on

8 Business Tech Trends to Watch in 2008

The McKinsey nerds have been doing their homework. In particular they seem to be paying attention to the ideas of McKinsey alumnus John Hagel who foretold almost every single one of these “trends” a decade ago.
In Eight business technology trends to watch they tell us that “Technology alone is rarely the key to unlocking economic value: companies create real wealth when they combine technology with new ways of doing business.”
Here are the eight technology-enabled business trends they’ve identified:
1. Distributing cocreation
“Technology now allows companies to delegate substantial control to outsiders—cocreation—in essence by outsourcing innovation to business partners that work together in networks.”
2. Using consumers as innovators
“As the Internet has evolved—an evolution prompted in part by new Web 2.0 technologies—it has become a more widespread platform for interaction, communication, and activism. Consumers increasingly want to engage online with one another and with organizations of all kinds. Companies can tap this new mood of customer engagement for their economic benefit.”
3. Tapping into a world of talent
“Top talent for a range of activities—from finance to marketing and IT to operations—can be found anywhere. The best person for a task may be a free agent in India or an employee of a small company in Italy rather than someone who works for a global business services provider. Software and Internet technologies are making it easier and less costly for companies to integrate and manage the work of an expanding number of outsiders, and this development opens up many contracting options for managers of corporate functions.”
4. Extracting more value from interactions
“The application of technology has reduced differences among the productivity of transformational and transactional employees, but huge inconsistencies persist in the productivity of high-value tacit ones. Improving it is more about increasing their effectiveness—for instance, by focusing them on interactions that create value and ensuring that they have the right information and context—than about efficiency. Technology tools that promote tacit interactions, such as wikis, virtual team environments, and videoconferencing, may become no less ubiquitous than computers are now. As companies learn to use these tools, they will develop managerial innovations—smarter and faster ways for individuals and teams to create value through interactions—that will be difficult for their rivals to replicate. Companies in sectors such as health care and banking are already moving down this road.”
5. Expanding the frontiers of automation
“Companies, governments, and other organizations have put in place systems to automate tasks and processes: forecasting and supply chain technologies; systems for enterprise resource planning, customer relationship management, and HR; product and customer databases; and Web sites. Now these systems are becoming interconnected through common standards for exchanging data and representing business processes in bits and bytes. What’s more, this information can be combined in new ways to automate an increasing array of broader activities, from inventory management to customer service.”
6. Unbundling production from delivery
“Technology helps companies to utilize fixed assets more efficiently by disaggregating monolithic systems into reusable components, measuring and metering the use of each, and billing for that use in ever-smaller increments cost effectively. Information and communications technologies handle the tracking and metering critical to the new models and make it possible to have effective allocation and capacity-planning systems.”
7. Putting more science into management
“Just as the Internet and productivity tools extend the reach of and provide leverage to desk-based workers, technology is helping managers exploit ever-greater amounts of data to make smarter decisions and develop the insights that create competitive advantages and new business models. From “ideagoras” (eBay-like marketplaces for ideas) to predictive markets to performance-management approaches, ubiquitous standards-based technologies promote aggregation, processing, and decision making based on the use of growing pools of rich data.”
BTW, this “trend” is owned by one Tom Davenport.
8. Making businesses from information
“Accumulated pools of data captured in a number of systems within large organizations or pulled together from many points of origin on the Web are the raw material for new information-based business opportunities.”
Take for example, ecosystema >>
So what have they left out? What business-tech trends have they overlooked?
Here are a few I came up with:
a. Internal Branding
The use of technology to improve internal communications and encourage employee engagement. Read up on Tammy Erickson!
b. The Return of Online Communities
An old idea, but with Web 2.0, companies must learn to engage their partners, suppliers, customers, and yes their competition. This does overlap trend # 4 (extracting value from interactions) but it’s far more than that. More about this from John Hagel >>
c. Greenwashing
Every business, even in the technology world, must learn how to become sustainable in this age of environmental activism. Companies that do so half-heartedly will pay the price.
d. Authentic Marketing
Using technology to drive a company’s message to capture attention using techniques that are authentic and reflect the core values of the company. The key to this will be ecosystem management.
What else?

Posted on

Management Secrets of Chairman Mao

Years ago, I read an article in the McKinsey Quarterly about the totalitarian structure of corporate governance. Why is it, asked Rajat Gupta (this was before he became the head of McKinsey), that in a democracy like the US, our corporate institutions are so undemocratic?
The Economist reminded me of that article a few days ago when they published an article titled “Mao and the art of management.”
Here are some “best practices” –
1. A powerful, mendacious slogan (in Mao’s case “Serve the People”…)
2. Ruthless media manipulation
3. Sacrifice of friends and colleagues
4. Activity substituting for achievement
Who does that remind you of? Exxon Mobil? The Republican Party? Cheney & W? All of the above?
By the way, here’s the answer to Rajat’s question = $$$.

Posted on

Wanted: A Leader for the Free World

Job description
President of the US of A
Requirements
– Ability to reverse decline of Brand USA.
– Must be able to build consensus by convincing other heads of state.
– Must possess sound judgement.
– Must have personal integrity.
– Must be able to reinvigorate people and institutions.
– Must have a basic understanding of the US Constitution.
– Must be able to separate fact from fiction.
– Must understand separation of church and state.
– Must understand Peter Drucker’s perspective.
– Must not be a puppet for Exxon-Mobil or the pharmaceutical industries.
– Must believe in sustainable business practices, green technology, and conservation.
– Must lead.
– Republicans need not apply.

Posted on

Back in the US of A

After spending some time in Europe over the last few months I have to say I’m glad to be back in the good ol’ USA.
Yes, we have our issues – bad government, dismal healthcare, guns everywhere, corporate greed, etc. etc., but at least we Americans do seem to question authority – far more, it seems to me, than the Europeans.
I was amazed at how fatalistic the European view of the world is. It reminded me of the old Indian view of life – you can’t do anything to change anything, so don’t do anything. It’s all kismet, so let it go.
The conservatives paint it this way. But they’re wrong. It’s not a culture war. It’s a war for individual rights. The right of individuals to decide their own destiny. The irony is that the conservatives focus on freedom, and use groupthink to enforce their views.
In their own blind way, the conservatives have destroyed our Bill of Rights, the very thing they claim they are protecting. It doesn’t have to be us versus them. It’s time to stop the Assault on Reason, as Gore calls it.
The absence of US political leadership has hurt us (and the world) over the past eight years. But what’s amazing to me is that Europe can’t lead at all, period. Maybe it has something to do with not rocking the boat, but European bureaucrats will never stick their necks out to change anything. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Sarkozy. Have any of them made a difference? Will they?
As for customer service, forget it. In some ways European customer service is almost as bad as India. (More about this in future posts.) The sheep-like character of the European consumer doesn’t improve matter either (more fodder for future posts). The European consumer is trapped – in a marketplace without alternatives.
On the positive side, Europe does have some nice monuments and museums, but again, many of them exist because they were saved, er, underwritten by Americans.

Also their healthcare system does work, despite claims to the contrary. In the US, we’re owned by the drug companies. In Europe the drug companies have been kept in their place.
I expected the Europeans to be more green and care more about the environment. No such luck. Businesses are more sophisticated at pretending to be green, but the general populace – from Italy to Austria, France to England fall way short.
Has anyone seen the dismal condition of the Bern bears in Switzerland? It’s just another PR nightmare waiting to happen for the “enlightened” Swiss.
Whoever said the Swiss care about the environment got it wrong. The Alps were so polluted with a gray haze that you couldn’t even see across Interlaken. And the smog lasted for weeks.
Finally, I tell you this: I’ll never forget Omaha beach. Or Utah. God bless the USA and the good men who gave their lives on those beaches.
And may God help us elect a real president this time around. Not just to lead America, but to lead the world. It’s about time. Time for some hope. And some good old fashioned reason.

Posted on

Chindogu anyone?


Being stalked? Just go ahead and camouflage yourself as a Coke machine.
Martin Fackler’s NYTimes article Fearing Crime, Japanese Wear the Hiding Place gives us a look at the peculiar world of Japanese innovation.
Writes Fackler:
[Japan is] home to a prolific subculture of individual inventors, whose ideas range from practical to bizarre. Inventors say a tradition of tinkering and building has made Japan welcoming to experimental ideas, no matter how eccentric.
“Japanese society won’t just laugh, so inventors are not afraid to try new things,” said Takumi Hirai, chairman of Japan’s largest association of individual inventors, the 10,000-member Hatsumeigakkai.
In fact, Japan produces so many unusual inventions that it even has a word for them: chindogu, or “queer tools.”
A chindogu manifesto is available online for all you budding inventors. The ten tenets are:
1. A Chindogu cannot be for real use.
2. A Chindogu must exist.
3. Inherent in every Chindogu is the spirit of anarchy.
4. Chindogu are tools for everyday life.
5. Chindogu are not for sale.
6. Humor must not be the sole reason for creating Chindogu.
7. Chindogu are not propaganda.
8. Chindogu are never taboo.
9. Chindogu cannot be patented.
10. Chindogu are without prejudice.
And here are a few examples of chindogu from the King of Chindogu – Kenji Kawakami.
Finally, here’s more from the International Chindogu Society. Check out the “portable zebra crossing” >>

Posted on

Pankaj Ghemawat on Globaloney!

Why do so many global strategies fail—despite companies’ powerful brands and other border-crossing advantages?
Seduced by market size, the illusion of a borderless, “flat” world, and the allure of similarities, firms launch one-size-fits-all strategies.
But cross-border differences are larger than we often assume, explains Pankaj Ghemawat in his new book: Redefining Global Strategy. Most economic activity—including direct investment, tourism, and communication—happens locally, not internationally.
Here’s Ghemawat’s take on globaloney >>
Here’s his globaloney quiz:
Do you basically agree or disagree with the following statements:
1. Competing the same way everywhere is the purest form of global strategy (Uniformity)
2. The truly global company has no home base (Statelessness)
3. Globalization tends to make industries become more concentrated (Consolidation)
4. Globalization offers virtually limitless growth opportunities (Endless Growth)
5. Global expansion is an imperative rather than an option to be evaluated (Act of Faith)
Give yourself—or your colleagues—1 point for each yes answer, and add them up to get to the total score. Zero implies an absence of globaloney. A score of 1 or 2, while indicating some globaloney, is still better than average. A score of 3 puts you at the average for several hundred managers who responded to an online survey—see below—but note that the average is pretty unhealthy given the number of problems it can lead to (think Coke). And a score of 4 or 5 rises beyond globaloney to the level of globalmania.
One wonders whether Tom Friedman will read this book…

Posted on

Gore Kicks off Presidential Run by Winning Nobel Prize

That’s the kind of headline I’d like to see…
While Gore is unexpectedly leaving the country to pick up his Nobel Prize, DraftGore.com has turned up the volume with an ad in the NYTimes (see full text below – I’ve added a few hyperlinks and a video or two to add context).
An Open Letter To Al Gore
Dear Mr. Vice President:
In the dark days of December 2000, when you bravely conceded the election you knew in your heart you had won, you said:
“I do have one regret: that I didn’t get the chance to stay and fight for the American people … especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget.”
Today we respectfully ask that you honor that pledge and hear us now.
You say you have fallen out of love with politics, and you have every reason to feel that way. But we know you have not fallen out of love with your country. And your country needs you now — as do your party and the planet you are fighting so hard to save.
You often quote Winston Churchill to remind us that we are entering a period of consequences with regard to the global climate crisis. You have done a superhuman job of bringing world attention to this issue. But this effort needs to be raised to a higher level. Only from the Oval Office can you wield the kind of influence needed to move countries, policies and corporations to bring about meaningful change.
The period of consequences you talk about is upon us in many other equally critical areas as well. Our Constitution is being trampled and our most cherished civil liberties are in grave danger. The executive branch is not accountable to anyone. And the people most in need of a voice in this country need someone in the White House who will speak for them.
Thousands of Americans are dying needlessly in Iraq while our reputation in the world has plummeted to an all-time low. The war on terror is backfiring as our enemies grow stronger and our resources are drained in an endless and unwinnable war. This is one of the most serious foreign policy crises our country has ever faced.
You were the first American political figure to brave political waters and warn us of the perils of starting a preemptive war in Iraq. You were right. But time to reverse the damage is running out. Given your experience, insight and the respect you enjoy among world leaders, you are uniquely positioned to bring this war to an end and restore America’s good name.

As you so often say, Mr. Vice President, these are not political issues. They are moral issues.
That’s why more than 136,000 people have signed our petition asking you to run for president in 2008. Ours is an urgent call to service on behalf of the country we love, the democracy that’s slipping away from us, and a world and planet that are in peril. We write on behalf of our children and grandchildren and plead with you to to lead us to a brighter future.

Many good and caring candidates are contending for the Democratic nomination. But none of them has the combination of experience, vision, standing in the world, and political courage that you would bring to the job. Nor do they have the support among voters that you enjoy and that would lead you to victory in 2008.
Mr. Vice President, there are times for politicians and times for heroes. America and the Earth need a hero right now — someone who will transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world. Please rise to this challenge, or you and millions of us will live forever wondering what might have been.
Sincerely yours,
Draft Gore,
on behalf of the thousands of our volunteers and the 136,000 people who signed our petition asking you to run for president
Download PDF version here>>

Posted on

Cool Company: Norway’s TH!NK


Another product innovation company, TH!NK is just a fantastic Norwegian company whose time has come. The green cousin of the SMART car… that’s how I think of it.
CEO Jan-Olaf Willums says that this car is coming WIFI enabled, with insurance, and most importantly, with no carbon emissions.
Sounds great! This is destined to be the iPod of cars – everyone will want one, just to be cool, if nothing else. Heck, this is what China and India need as well, not more pollution causing tin-can cars.

Posted on

Cool Companies: Germany’s Q-Cells AG

John Hagel reminds us that most businesses are in fact a combination of three very different kinds of models:
Infrastructure management businesses (IMB) – high volume, routine processing businesses – think of contract manufacturers, logistics providers and call center operators as relatively pure play examples of these businesses
Customer relationship businesses (CRB) – businesses that get to know individual customers extremely well and, based on that understanding, help to access relevant resources for these customers – relatively pure play examples of these businesses include large advisory firms that help large enterprise customers decide what form of IT outsourcing to pursue and help these large enterprises to evaluate and negotiate with the right mix of outsourcing service providers.
Product innovation and commercialization businesses (PIC) – businesses that focus on developing innovative new products and services, getting them into market quickly and accelerating adoption of the products – think of semiconductor firms operating without their own fab facilities as relatively pure play examples of these businesses.
I love product innovation businesses – in some ways they are the best hope for the creative individual because they are by very nature more entrepreneurial and performance-based.
Which brings me to one of these companies…
Take a look at Germany’s Q-Cells AG.
Their focus is simple: develop, produce and sell high-performance solar cells. The goal? To drive the photo-voltaic industry to competitiveness.
Don’t forget to check out the Solar Taxi!

Posted on

Vaclav Havel’s Moral Footprint

Here’s a short quote from Havel’s op-ed piece in the NYTimes:
The end of the world has been anticipated many times and has never come, of course. And it won’t come this time either. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us. But that doesn’t mean that the human race is not at serious risk. As a result of our endeavors and our irresponsibility our climate might leave no place for us. If we drag our feet, the scope for decision-making — and hence for our individual freedom — could be considerably reduced.
Also:
Maybe we should start considering our sojourn on earth as a loan. There can be no doubt that for the past hundred years at least, Europe and the United States have been running up a debt, and now other parts of the world are following their example. Nature is issuing warnings that we must not only stop the debt from growing but start to pay it back. There is little point in asking whether we have borrowed too much or what would happen if we postponed the repayments.
Time to wake up everybody!!>>

Posted on

Intelligent Aggregation: TheIssue.com

The previous post on this blog just got picked up by theissue.com – which describes itself as a “blog newspaper.”
The site describes itself as follows:
The Issue is a non-partisan blog newspaper that provides a window to an emerging world of diverse and informed opinions. We cull the blogosphere for its wise insights, probing analyses, and diverse perspectives, drawing together a borderless newspaper. By combining the democratization and diversity of new media with the format and editorial standards of traditional news, we hope to offer a hybrid news source that provides the best of both worlds.
Now I don’t usually believe anyone who says they’re non-partisan (all the Republican attack sites do this), but I do understand the concept. In essence, this is a very valuable function, one that delivers real value to the busy reader.
I think we’re about to see a flood of these blog aggregators in the marketspace – many of them tightly focused on niche topics.
The news media is actually fairly weak at blog aggregation, even though it’s a technique which could help them drive traffic and revenue. Especially if they’d embed videos.

Posted on

Country Branding: China’s Olympic Nightmare

I always warn my clients that taking a half-baked product to market will actually do more damage than good. Now let’s see if the same applies to nation-branding.
The Olympics will focus the media spotlight on China. But will China actually enjoy the focus? Will the Olympics help or hurt brand China?
The hurt has already begun.
In a recent New York Times article “As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes”, Joseph Kahn and Jim Yardley tell us that “Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party.”
Apparently the government has banned publication of data on the subject for “fear of inciting social unrest.”
But the Kahn and Yardley give us some data nevertheless:
– An internal, unpublicized report by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning in 2003 estimated that 300,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution, mostly of heart disease and lung cancer. An additional 110,000 deaths could be attributed to indoor air pollution caused by poorly ventilated coal and wood stoves or toxic fumes from shoddy construction materials, said a person involved in that study.
– Another report, prepared in 2005 by Chinese environmental experts, estimated that annual premature deaths attributable to outdoor air pollution were likely to reach 380,000 in 2010 and 550,000 in 2020.
and:
– A World Bank study done with SEPA, the national environmental agency, concluded that outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year. Indoor pollution contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhea, bladder and stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.
Wait, there’s more.
An official study to estimate the environmental cost of China’s runaway economic growth was shut down prematurely.
Greenwashing, apparently, is in. Here’s an absurd story which drives the point home: “Villagers in southwestern China are scratching their heads after an estimated more than $60,000 was spent to paint an entire barren mountainside green.”
Whoo-hoo.
Smog from China is contributing to bad air quality and possibly even affecting the climate in parts of the western United States. The Telegraph also reports: “Almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia…”
And now, to make things worse, they’re probably going to beat up the Chinese enviromentalists who dare to speak up. Again from NYTimes:
“At least two leading environmental organizers have been prosecuted in recent weeks, and several others have received sharp warnings to tone down their criticism of local officials. One reason the authorities have cited: the need for social stability before the 2008 Olympics, once viewed as an opportunity for China to improve the environment.”
Ouch.
Nation Branding 101: Embrace reality.
Maybe we can just cheer everyone up by watching a movie:

Posted on

Beyond Chatter: Monitoring Online Ecosystems

There’s a flutter of activity in the ad-agency world around the subject of tracking online conversations.
WAPO reports on a tool call Buzz Manager, “a Web-based research tool that trolls sports blogs, message boards, podcasts, YouTube and similar sources, capturing relevant chatter on behalf of a client” — whether a racecar driver, corporate sponsor or sports league. That information is analyzed for content and impact and then translated into a Buzz Rating — a single number on a scale of 1 to 10.
In my view, this is just an online version of the old “press-clipping” service that PR companies would go use in the old days of Web.0!
What they’re missing is a map of the entire ecosystem. How does traffic (and attention) flow through the ecosystem? How many people are in the ecosystem? Which sites are positioned as hubs in the ecosystem? Are they friends or foes?
Wait a minute. That’s why we developed our Ecosystem Intelligence™ Services.

Posted on

Tiananmen 2.0 – Chinese Blogger Zeng Jinyan

Arianna Huffington calls Zeng Jinyan, a 22-year old dissident blogger, “the online progeny of Wang Wei Lin, the protester who blocked a column of advancing tanks during the Tiananmen Uprising in 1989.”
I still think about Wei Lin – the poor man was executed 14 days after his brave stand.
I will never forget that moment. The bravery, the tragedy.
China will never be a great country, in my eyes, until Wei Lin gets a posthumous medal from the Chinese government.
Someday.
Back to Zeng Jinyan.
Her blog is in chinese, but take a look at this translation.
“House Arrested Again,” says her T-shirt. Read about her funny T-shirt incident, and pray for her life >>

Posted on

John Hagel’s FAST Strategy Webinar – May 9, 2007

Over the last sixty years, the average lifetime of companies on the S&P 500 list has declined by 80%, from 75 years to 15 years.
John Hagel asks: “What if everything you learned about business strategy is WRONG?”
According to JH3, the basic principles of traditional strategy – the principles still taught at most business schools and company executive education programs – are wrong:
· WRONG: Develop a detailed strategy before moving to operational implementation
· WRONG: Focus on a one to five year time horizon to develop robust strategies.
· WRONG: Pursue a portfolio approach to business initiatives to cope with growing uncertainty.
· WRONG: Strategy is a specialized discipline that needs to be pursued by experts.
So what’s the alternative? Hagel has developed a powerful approach he calls FAST STRATEGY and it’s being used by some of the world’s most successful (and innovative) companies.
On May 9, Hagel’s doing a webinar with StrategyWorld.org titled appropriately – FAST Strategy: How to Get Results in Disruptive Markets

The webinar will provide you with a basic understanding of how to use FAST Strategy in both your business and as a personal tool to improve your career.
Check it out >>
Note: the way I see it is that Hagel normally charges $25,000 for an hour long presentation on strategy. And now you can join the conversation (live) for $1497.00 on May 9. That’s chump change, especially if your company pays for it! See you there>>

Posted on

Silencing Science

Here’s a press release which made me shake my head in disbelief – again.
Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or in public, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed “of official interest.”
On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing “Public Communications.” This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open science” policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.
Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command:
* Any “fundamental research communication” must “before the communication occurs” be submitted to and approved by the designated “head of the operating unit.” While the directive states that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget, or management implications of the research,” it does not define these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
* National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the public”; and
* Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks “advance notice” of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations.”
“This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number and the temperature.”
The agency rejected a more open policy adopted last year by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The new policy also was rushed to print despite an ongoing Commerce Office of Inspector General review of communication policies that was undertaken at congressional request.
While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure whether a conclusion has been officially approved “then the researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her individual conclusion.” Yet, another part of the order states non-official communications “may not take place or be prepared during working hours.” This conflict means that every scientist who answers an unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by giving an honest answer.
Painful. What’s next for our poor scientists? Public floggings and burnings at the stake, perhaps?
You’ve gotta read it to believe it!

Posted on

The Best Spice Blog on the Web

And the award goes to Spicelines.com – the best spice blog on the web!
Move over Victoria Beckham! The authentic spice girl is Courtenay Beinhorn Dunk.
She describes herself as an “obsessive cook, style fanatic, avid traveler, reluctant writer, food photographer when the light is right…” Judge for yourself by visiting the Spiceline archives >>
Wait, there’s more. Spices, you see, are part of our global heritage.
Says Dunk:
“The more I traveled, the more I noticed that spices and their flavors are global. It’s the local tastes that are different.
“When I ate fish head curry in Singapore I could taste the earthiness of the cumin that flavors carrot salad in Morocco and tomatillo salsa in Mexico. In Paris at Ze Kitchen Galerie, William Ledeuil used flowery Tahitian vanilla to bring out the sea-sweet taste of perfectly fresh sea bass. In the West we think of cinnamon as a dessert spice, yet at La Maison Bleue in Fez, it was the dominant spice in a savory 14th century lamb and couscous dish.”
Wow.
Check out:
– Aurora’s Chicken Enchiladas in Tomatillo Sauce with Garlic and Cumin
– Salt, Salt Everywhere: The Five Salts You Really Need
– Great Reads: Climbing the Mango Trees, a Spicy Memoir of India

There’s even fiction like this bit – SpiceTales: Claire’s Dream
Whew!
I’ve been so buried lately, that I hadn’t notice that Courtenay has actually answered my request for “butter chicken“… the recipe I’ve been experimenting with for over seven years now. I’ll try it this weekend! Thanks, Courtenay!! 🙂