Indonesia and the Ultimate Tobacco Ban Protest

Just look at the size of that sucker. Philip Morris, eat your heart out! I am genuinely of two minds over cigarette smoking bans being imposed throughout the world. The Emmanuel that wants to live a reasonably healthy lifestyle abhors the practice and the many diseases it gives rise to. But, the relatively live and let live me grants that persons have a genuine right to severely impair their health under certain conditions. Truth be told, I have no problems with requiring tobacco firms to place graphic warnings on the dangers of their products--see the recent US FDA graphics (and I do mean graphic). If adults still persist in smoking after seeing these warnings, well, that's their prerogative.

However, both tendencies clash when it comes to smoking in public places. Aside from the offputting aroma, we also have to deal with the reality of second-hand smoke which has been found to be exceedingly unhealthy as well. For example: how far should we go in dissuading smoking from, say, hangouts where people traditionally indulge in vices to (literally) let off some steam? Here in the UK, there is an ongoing debate as to whether thousands of pubs have found their business diminished since smoking bans were instituted at these places. There's even an online petition movement clamouring for a change.

These debates on smoking are now moving to the developing world as tobacco giants join local firms in trying to expand their business there. Call it regulatory arbitrage as laws become more onerous for selling tobacco in the industrialized world--for now. In Indonesia, tobacco farmers want to sabotage legislation that would (1) limit tobacco advertising, (2) place graphic warnings on tobacco products, and (3) ban smoking in public places. Sounds familiar, eh? However, I was particularly taken by the antics of tobacco farmers protesting the bill such as with the "megarette" above. My blogging affiliates at Global Post have more fun if ludicrously unhealthy images. What follows though is a summary of the legislation which has incited the most colourful libertarian--ish protests IMHO from Berita Jakarta:

Thousands of tobacco farmers from various regions who incorporated in Kretek Rescue National Coalition (KNPK)[kretek is the Indonesian term for flavoured cigarettes] demonstrated by surrounding the State Palace on Jl. Medan Merdeka Utara, Central Jakarta. In this action, they demanded the Act Draft (RUU) about Control of Tobacco Products Impact for Health and the Regulation Implementation Draft (RPP) of Security on Materials Containing Addictive Substance in form of Tobacco Products to be canceled.

Abhisam Demosa as Head of National Kretek said the rules were feared threatened the life of tobacco farmers and workers in Indonesia. “It could also threaten the hawkers and cigarettes seller agents,” he expressed, Wednesday. Besides carried coffins [ironic, this], demonstrators also brought a property of big cigarette which burned and smoked alternately. Because of this demonstration, traffic flows in front of the State Palace severely congested. In fact, Jl. Veteran III was closed temporarily.

Hundreds of security officers stand by at the scene equipped with two units of water canon car and one unit of barracuda. To block demonstrators, officers installed barbed wires along 100 meters from the State Palace. This demonstration did not only cause congestion in front of the State Palace, but also on Jl. Veterean, Jl. Merdeka Barat towards HI Roundabout and vice versa, as well as around Harmoni area.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em? These habits are dying hard throughout the world.

Novak Djokovic Smoothes Serbia's EU Accession

Before beginning, I must tell you of perhaps the worst marketing gambit of modern times. In November 2009, Adidas decided to make Andy Murray its top tennis endorsee when it already had Novak Djokovic under contract. While it's understandable that getting the Great Hope of British tennis on board was a coup of sorts given that it's one of the largest markets for sporting goods and has been starved for a Wimbledon champion for ages, let's just say Murray has not delivered the goods since then. Djokovic soon left Adidas and endorsed Sergio Tacchini. Owning precisely zero spotswear from the latter and loads from the former, it behoves me how Djokovic has become next to unbeatable this year while picking up the Australian Open and Wimbledon titles. Meanwhile, Murray has won no grand slams.

Anyway, to the story. Serbia has produced world-class athletes over the years. Think of Red Star Belgrade winning the European Cup (Champions League) in 1991. Or, how Ana Ivanovic became the world's top-ranked tennis player a few years ago. To be sure, the events in the former Yugoslavia after the Cold War's demise are still prominent in the world's consciousness to this day since they happened not so long ago. Since then Serbian leadership has been keen on repairing its international image. Among its more important medium-term objectives has been joining the European Union alike its neighbours. As I've long documented [1, 2, 3], this process of integration was contingent on handing over the big three war criminals to the UN tribunal. With Slobodan Milosevic. Radovan Karazdic and Ratko Mladic being handed over to meet their fates, this chapter is rapidly closing and is helping Serbia's process of accession, one hopes.

However, while IR junkies may know who these not-so-fine folks are and what's become of them, the wider public may not. How does one improve Serbia's public image, then, to the wider European and world publics? The answer is the world's No. 1 tennis player, Novak Djokovic. After thoroughly dismantling Rafael Nadal in the Wimbledon final--what more Adidas boy Andy Murray?--Serbia has in part sought to capitalize on his sporting achievements. There was Serbian President Boris Tadic cheering "Nole" in London SW19. Celebrations pictured above in Belgrade are indicative of his popularity. But, in reality, how does Djokovic's achievements fit with convincing bureaucrats of Serbia's EU worthiness? The FT's beyondbrics serves up this take:

The former Yugoslav republic has struggled to overcome image problems since the wars of the 1990s – in which neighbours and much of the world saw Serbia as the aggressor. “Novak really did a great thing for our country”, said Boris Tadic, the country’s pro-western president, joking that he could hand over his duties to Djokovic without much worry. Blic, a Belgrade newspaper, proclaimed that politicians should follow Djokovic’s example of diligence and dedication, particularly as Serbia embarks on the long, hard road of EU accession.

The arrest in May of Ratko Mladic, a fugitive Bosnian Serb former army commander (and a big part of Serbia’s international image problem), has made EU candidacy probable by the end of this year, and accession talks with Brussels likely to open not long after.

But the EU monitoring apparatus – the thousands of bureaucrats overseeing Croatia’s reform progress for the last six years – will now focus most of its attention on Serbia. With that in mind, the state should work harder on promotion, rather than rely on a successful individual like Djokovic, said Milka Forcan, a marketing specialist and former executive at Delta Holding, the country’s largest private sector company.

“Novak with his results has already influenced a better image of Serbia, and his position as world Number One and winning the Wimbledon championship is going to underline that,” Forcan said. “The state [also] has to work in an organised and planned way on constant promotion of the country.”

Djokovic has done more to improve his country’s image than “all of our diplomacy”, a former ambassador to France said. The Serbian ambassador to the UN said the tennis win prompted friendly comments among diplomats, but this made no difference with regard to other countries’ political stances toward Serbia.

Take note, Adidas--domestic concerns are keen on the commercial opportunities offered by the charismatic, grass-eating tennis player:

The Serbian Chamber of Commerce last December recognised the tennis star’s PR potential, naming him, as an individual, the “Best Serbian Brand”. Djokovic has appeared in television advertising for Telekom Srbija, the state-run phone company, and Idea supermarkets, a Croatian-owned chain. A Croatian public relations executive commented after the Wimbledon final: “This is finally one positive global story about Serbia, instead of Ratko Mladic.

Moreover, Serbia has to deliver more in European fora than in tennis courts according to diplomats working on the front line of Serbia's accession process:

Fantastic success by Novak Djokovic might help Serbian foreign policy but only if it continues fulfilling all undertaken obligations and working diligently on change of laws at least as much as the famous tennis player has been working to make his dream come true. This is actually the message by politicians from the EU and world media editors who yesterday spoke for ‘Blic’.

‘We support and are happy about Djokovic’s success. For a country it is very good to have so successful people and we believe this shall improve the image of Serbia. However, it is not to be expected that the individual success of a tennis player is going to have any influence on the process of association because it depends on Serbia and obligations it has to fulfill’, ‘Blic’ was told at the cabinet of Stefan Fuehle, the EU Enlargement Commissioner...

Jelko Kacin, the rapporteur for Serbia at the European Parliament has the similar opinion. ‘The victory is huge and I congratulate Djokovic. The most important message of that victory is directed to Serbia: only diligent work can bring progress and success. Serbia and its politicians have to understand that only Serbia can take itself into the EU’, Kacin says.

It almost makes me want to buy Sergio Tacchini's gear instead of Adi Dassler's (even if the former not having a website in AD 2011 complicates matters). At any rate, Serbia has a new hero who not only provides the country with a highly positive image but also wipes the slate clean for a new generation of Serbs. And nearly no one would doubt that Serbia is indeed *in* Europe.

Branding ≠ Capitalism: Another Naomi Klein Fallacy

When it comes to flyweight and academically insubstantial commentary, few outdo pseudo anti-globalization author Naomi Klein. Aside from dubious wholesale denunciations of "capitalism" via The Shock Doctrine--as if there were a single all-encompassing version of it--we also have inane economic analyses of trade and other fallacious ramblings.

Today, however, I am here to debunk her earlier work which established her reputation among many of the impressionable and those who simply don't know any better, No Logo. An overly long jumble of rewarmed Marxist critiques of capitalism, it takes aim at branding as an artefact of modernity. But, since penetrating insight is not one of the hallmarks of Naomi Klein-style writing, this suggestion is easy to dispel. Something which unites her sort with those she purports to condemn is the assumption that branding goes hand in hand with contemporary capitalism.

Not so. In my recent research work, I've once again been reminded of this fact by archaeological research which refutes this notion. If we are to take a longer view perspective of things, branding for the purposes of commercial exchange did not originate during the past few centuries of industrialization. Try Iraq circa 4000 BC for instance according to David Wengrow at UCL, our sister University of London institution:

Commodity branding has been characterized as the distinguishing cultural move of late capitalism and is widely viewed as a historically distinctive feature of the modern global economy. The brand's rise to prominence following the Industrial Revolution and the attendant shift of corporate enterprise towards the dissemination of image-based products have been further cited as contributing to the erosion of older forms of identity such as those based on kinship and class. However, comparisons between recent forms of branding and much earlier modes of commodity marking associated with the Urban Revolution of the fourth millennium BC suggest that systems of branding address a paradox common to all economies of scale and are therefore likely to arise (and to have arisen) under a wide range of ideological and institutional conditions, including those of sacred hierarchies and stratified states. An examination of the material and cognitive properties of sealing practices and the changing functions of seals in their transition from personal amulets to a means of labeling mass-produced goods helps to unpack the interlocking (pre)histories of quality control, authenticity, and ownership that make up the modern brand.

I've also borrowed a very interesting edited work entitled Cultures of Commodity Branding by Andrew Bevan and again David Wengrow which expands on the journal article by including several more examples of branding exercises drawn from antiquity:

Commodity branding did not emerge with contemporary global capitalism. In fact, the authors of this volume show that the cultural history of branding stretches back to the beginnings of urban life in the ancient Near East and Egypt, and can be found in various permutations in places as diverse as the Bronze Age Mediterranean, and Early Modern Europe. What the contributions in this volume also vividly document, both in past social contexts and recent ones as diverse as the kingdoms of Cameroon, Socialist Hungary or online EBay auctions, is the need to understand branded commodities as part of a broader continuum with techniques of gift-giving, ritual, and sacrifice. This volume obliges specialists in marketing and economics to reassess the relationship between branding and capitalism, as well as adding an important new concept to the work of economic anthropologists and archaeologists.

There's also an earlier post on the superb Material World anthropology blog from which the image of a seal at the top of this entry is taken.

The main takeaway is that branding and the emergence of global capitalism are not inseparable concepts, with the former having appeared on the scene long before the latter. It is indeed a sad reflection on our age how someone with Geraldo Rivera-like investigative reporting chops and non-existent scholarly chops receives so much attention. Call it the Sarah Palin self-promotion effect. Further investigation, however, easily betrays a characteristic lack of awareness or erudition.

American Badass: Kraft Gordon Gekko'd Cadbury

[NOTE: The candyman is often portrayed in popular culture as a sweet-talking but devious character. Here's one named...Kraft. I almost forgot about it until I witnessed the sickly sweet made-for-TV Obama visit to the UK. Unlike fawning by the uninformed over an insubstantial political figure, here's unsweetened commentary on a distinctly souring transatlantic trade relationship.

This post is a follow-up to the post I made earlier regarding the Kraft takeover of the UK's largest confectioner, Cadbury. If you will recall, I was opposed to this move on degustatory and economic grounds. Others were even more adamant--see the image to the right. While there are fine American chocolates alike San Francisco's famous See's Candies, let's just say American mass-market chocolates are not up to snuff. (To those who care, Cadbury represents affordable but good quality chocolates.) Others too had concerns about Kraft adopting typical American corporate raider-style asset stripping of Cadbury assets and laying off of staff. To assuage such fears, Kraft's then-leadership made promises to maintain both,

On the positive side of this acquisition, the famous Cadbury brand has spearheaded Kraft's efforts at opening up consumer markets in the world's fastest emerging developing countries--think especially of India:

With the acquisition of Cadbury, Krafts portfolio has expanded beyond 40 confectionery brands, each with annual sales of more than $100 million. Kraft has now become the biggest player in the global chocolate industry with popular [Cadbury] brands like Dairy Milk, Creme Egg, Flake, and Green & Black’s. Kraft’s global market share in chocolates and candies currently stands at 12.5% by our estimates.

In addition to owning some of the more popular confectionery brands, Cadbury has also helped Kraft expand its global reach, mainly in the European Union and the Asia-Pacific region. For example, in India, Cadbury is almost synonymous with chocolate, given that the company has been present for more than 60 years in the country selling popular brands like Dairy Milk, 5-Star and Perk. Cadbury also expanded Kraft’s presence in Europe’s chocolate markets of Poland, Russia, and France.

Kraft has indicated that its profits in the Asia-Pacific region have recorded double-digit growth since 2008. Kraft is looking to penetrate the lucrative Indian market by leveraging the Cadbury brand to sell its own flagship Oreo cookies and powdered beverage Tang. India has become the fastest growing market in Asia-Pacific for Kraft with around 40% growth during Q1 2011, double the 20% growth for China and Indonesia.

On the negative side here we are so many months later and, to no one's real surprise, the Yanks do not appear to be keeping their end of the bargain. Indeed, their CEO doesn't even bother to come to the UK when called to explain Kraft's nefarious activities before parliament. Call it choco-patriotism, but it's been classified as an act of high treason akin perhaps to extrajudicially executing Cadbury's British heart and soul. Let's just say all is not well in terms of plant closures, staffing, and integration. And with each UK Kraft gaffe, lawmakers become keener on tightening acquisition laws to repeat this miserable experience:

Ramifications from the bitter battle spread far be­yond Bourn­ville, Cadbury’s historic home in the English Midlands. Irene Rosenfeld, Kraft chief executive, continues to ruffle feathers by snubbing UK lawmakers – a parliamentary report on the acquisition, issued on Monday, refers to her failure to respond to their summons as a “sorry episode”. Take-over rules are being redrawn – in a way that bankers warn will hamper the purchase of British companies – after Kraft reversed pledges to keep open a Cadbury plant in Somerdale, west England. (Inspection of the plant, asserts one banker, entailed little more than “a quick Google Earth”.)

There is friction in executive suites, too. Welding together two organisations with disparate cultures has resulted in an exodus of senior former Cadbury executives as the nexus of power migrated from the UK to Kraft’s European headquarters in Zurich. The tension reaches all levels of former Cadbury staff, from the commercial division to the factory floor.

Ah yes, the missing American overseer:

All this has left Ms Rosenfeld unfazed. The representatives she sent to appear before a parliamentary select committee were best placed to handle questions about the British market, she says. Speaking to the Financial Times before Monday’s statement from the committee, she said: “We have clearly shown ourselves to be good stewards of the brands, and yet the continued assault has been somewhat surprising. “I think we’ve done everything possible to address concerns, to respond to issues, and the focus remains on making sure that this integration is successful.”

Defectors from Cadbury and politicians beg to differ. They say the speed of the integration, allied to the fact that the hostile nature of the bid precluded due diligence, has made the process more fraught. Ms Rosenfeld’s perceived disdain, for workers as well as parliament, has added to the rancour.

And here's something on the legal changes in the works:

This week, in one of the biggest shake-ups of UK dealmaking rules in decades, a round of consultation by the Takeover Panel on proposed changes to rules governing mergers and acquisitions comes to a conclusion. In October, the panel unveiled proposals aimed at redressing the balance of power between bidders and target companies, and improving disclosure for the benefit of employees and shareholders. They are expected to come into effect this year.

The proposed rule changes are the result of a feeling among some senior politicians that UK companies like Cadbury were being acquired for short-term gain at the expense of the best interests of their investors and staff.

Already bankers and lawyers are preparing themselves for the impact of the proposed changes. One is a tightening of the so-called “put up or shut up” period, requiring a publicly named bidder to declare formal intentions within 28 days of an approach. At present, the clock starts ticking at the request of the target company. The aim is to reduce the time a company can be “in play”, after several recent potential takeovers – including Kraft’s – dragged on for months.

More on the new measures here. So it's definitely a mixed bag--not all treats with a lot of Yankee tricks mixed in leaving a regrettable aftertaste. I certainly am wary of the Americans screwing over this great brand built over decades for short-term gain as is the habit of a lot of their kind.

Key to Asian Consumers is...European Football?

And more specifically, UEFA Champions League football. Aside from attracting more global viewers than the Super Bowl, this Wall Street Journal article suggests (Western) advertisers seeking to make inroads into developing Asia can use the foremost European club competition as a vehicle:

"The global audience is huge," says David Taylor, UEFA's head of events. "Wherever you are in the world you can watch it. Research from partners, which we see when discussing renewals, shows that its value for money, although these are large sums involved."

For big advertisers, the regularity, exposure and global footprint of Champions League matches—the tournament attracts roughly 150 million TV viewers a week in 70 countries—has long made sponsoring the tournament an effective strategy for marketing to large groups of consumers.

There's also the challenge of monetizing sports viewers' attention to geerate off-the-air revenues:

All this comes as major European football teams are stepping up their efforts to draw Asian fans in the belief that the world's developing football markets offer growth potential both in terms of broadcast and other commercial rights.

Standard Chartered, the Asian-facing bank and lead sponsor of Liverpool FC, reinforced this point last month. "The market is saturated in Europe with so many clubs, how many more merchandise sales are they going to create over the next 10 years?" said Gavin Laws, the bank's sponsorship executive. "If the clubs want to do merchandise sales at an exponential rate you've got to be in China, you've got to be in Korea, getting all the people excited about the game."

Yet the biggest challenge for top clubs is how to turn fans in the world's most populous continent into profits. Tom Fox, the commercial director of 2006 Champions League finalist Arsenal, says the international profile of leading English Premier League clubs is out of proportion to their size, which should temper expectations of building a major marketing platform in overseas markets.

"Arsenal is a £230 million club in terms of revenue. Then there's Chelsea—slightly smaller—and Man United, which is bigger," says Fox. "They are all trying to build a brand independently around the world on multiple fronts, in North America, Asia and the European continent. But there are billion-dollar brands around the world trying to compete in China and failing."

As a useful comparison, the NBA itself has promoted basketball in Asia, while in football it's been down more to individual clubs. Is the NBA's effort more concentrated? Perhaps:

There is also a structural issue. While the leading European clubs are competing against each other for new fans, the task of building professional basketball in Asia has been undertaken centrally by the National Basketball Association, rather than individual franchises.

In other words, the NBA operates as a coordinating body that ensures that each of its teams benefits from the commercial opportunities available in China. "There is no duplication and there is a collaborative strategy ensuring that all franchises benefit," says Prof. Simon Chadwick, a professor of sports-business strategy and marketing at Coventry University in the U.K. Without a central coordinating body for European football, he says clubs are left to fight among themselves in what is arguably "a zero-sum game that demands a different strategic approach."

It would be much easier to develop individual club brands in international markets if Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool worked together, says Fox. "Do I think that all of the NBA clubs marketing all of their brands together is an advantage?" he says. "My answer simply, is yes."

Just as Formula One beings its races to Asia--China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea--it may be the case that physically bringing European football to Asia is what is required. Then again, friendlies in Asia would only further lengthen already long European campaigns. To be sure, there are a few bankable Asian football stars alike Ji-Sung Park of Manchester United, but my belief is that sponsoring local teams may be a better long-term route as the sport gains further traction in Asia. Certainly, major international sponsors can help pave the way for its growth there.

UPDATE: And speaking of Ji-Sung Park, sceptics thought earlier on that he only got into the Man U squad to sell memorabilia in Asia [!] His successes at the club have put paid to that, though it's taken quite some time to prove his worth for one of the world's most storied clubs (while selling lots of t-shirts and the rest of it). Maybe his example suggests European clubs taking on talented Asian players is the key to unlocking the Asian sports market...

It is not only the medals, this is a player increasingly appreciated by fans, media and teammates. Park has overcome the doubters who felt that he had been signed by the giant English club in order to help it sell shirts and do deals in Asia. The player, 30, has actually done so but only because he has been such a success on the pitch. He hasn't always been a regular starter for the club but when the big games come around, and for a team like Manchester United, there are lots of big games, his name can usually be found on the team sheet.

A Class Analysis of Super Mario's Mushroom World

I was visiting the Yahoo! website when I came across an interesting-sounding feature on "Video Game Myths Revealed." Apparently, some folks with too much free time on their hands have made the preposterous (mock?) argument that Super Mario is a Stalinist communist based on the original Super Mario Brothers title. From the above video clip, they cite the following:

• he wears a lot of red;
• he gets more powerful with mushrooms (hippie/drug culture reference);
• he wants to overthrow King Koopa AKA Bowser (instead of Tsar Nicolas II);
  
• he pulls down the flag and raises one with a red star at the end of each stage;
• he has a strong semblance to "Uncle Joe" Stalin with his luxuriant moustache;
• he is super, while Stalin fronted a superpower

While this urban legend may sound plausible to some, a more careful analysis leads us to an entirely different conclusion. Not one to be outdone in silliness, let me try and shed more light in two ways. First, the Nintendo franchise is much broader than Super Mario Brothers I--a single entry in a vast if conflicting catalogue which Nintendo does not provide an official narrative to. Second, I will use a Marxist class analysis to determine the hierarchy in this familiar if understudied world. To be sure, class warfare is rife even there.

Who knows, I may even submit an article to The International Journal of Computer Game Research [!] if enough people take this silliness seriously. I must reiterate though that this is a preliminary sketch given limitations in the source material. Here are the main talking points:

Mario is a royalist fer crying out loud, not a communist - Let's talk about virtual geography and using the appropriate level of analysis. The Mushroom Kingdom where Princess Peach lives is but one of the many monarchies situated in the wider Mushroom World. Among others, there's also Sarasaland where Princess Daisy hails from and the Dark Land which the aforementioned Bowser reigns over. Applying Marx's theory of historical materialism, this situation is a product of material conditions in the Mushroom World. To wit, this world is in the feudal stage featuring rival aristocracies. The unique thing, however, is that this all transpires in a post-industrial mindscape. Alike in classic balance of power politics, Princesses Peach and Daisy naturally align against the rising power of Bowser and his "evil" machinations. (Although the Mushroom Kingdom is said to be one of the largest, its military expenditures pale in comparison to those of the Dark Land.)

In a crude Marxist sense, the predominance of Mushroom Kingdom dwellers Peach, Mario, Luigi, etc. in Nintendo games and its corresponding implications for revenues drives Bowser to seek its conquest time and again by kidnapping Princess Peach. Which, of course, has the paradoxical effect of increasing royalties to the Mushroom Kingdom since Nintendo must publish yet another "Bowser kidnaps Peach; Mario must rescue" title as a result. Alike dollar hegemony in our world, this is the central political-economic tension in Mario's.

Mushroom World has a speciesist bias that leads to obvious inequalities - There is, unfortunately, not an uncommon anthropomorphic form of discrimination in make-believe worlds. Why must humanoid characters have predominance over other sentient beings who seem as capable as they are? Toad is a case in point. In Super Mario Brothers II, Toad actually has the greatest abilities alongside Mario, Luigi and Peach. Yet he continues to be marginalized and has not received a (semi-)starring role since 1988. Rather, the commodified depiction of Toad as a category of lookalike serfs in the Mushroom Kingdom continues his exploitation despite possessing extraordinary talents we occasionally become aware of.

Thus, Bowser's continuing obsession with kidnapping and marrying Princess Peach is his attempt to reduce speciesist bias by hopefully siring more human-like offspring instead of, well, Bowser Jr. (who doesn't get far like his dad in genteel society or aristocratic circles). Bowser = Middleton? Just a thought. Instead of trying to marry up in this messed-up virtual arena, Donkey Kong has chosen to live in a non-imperialist realm elsewhere in Mushroom World. Still, the oppression becomes intolerable that Donkey Kong too has had to resort to kidnapping Mario's girlfriend in the eponymous video game--but only for that instance and not with Bowser-like determination. Nevertheless, if you are in search of a real revolutionary in Mushroom World, it would be Donkey Kong and his nephew Diddy Kong. Offhand, I would say that the Mushroom Kingdom has a Gini coefficient somewhere between 0.70 and 0.80, while that in the less hierarchical Kong environs it's somewhere in the range of 0.20 to 0.30.

Mario's fake populist affectations remind me of New Labour architect Peter Mandelson, not Stalin - Let's get this one straight: Mario is a plumber the same way that Sir Tom Jones was a bricklayer. (Both are master showmen feigning humbler occupations.) Having long ago discovered his cash cow potential, this most recognizable and bankable of video game stars is no lumpenproletariat. Again, that would be Toad(s) in the Mushroom Kingdom or Goomba(s) in the Dark Land (who do invade Mushroom Kingdom when Bowser kidnaps Peach; hence the confusion in the clip above). Actually, Mario and his moustache do not so much remind me of "Uncle Joe" Stalin but of Lord Mandelson during his left-ish era. And yes, Mandelson had a nice 'stache during the time he worked as an economist at the Trades Union Congress.

Here's a question for you: in how many games does Mario actually do *plumbing* instead of beating up Koopas and Goombas and all that glamorous stuff? Few and far between. Just as Lord Peter Mandelson would much rather hang out with the likes of oligarch Oleg Deripaska in Corfu than with slovenly "Peace Camp" protesters in Parliament Square, so does Mario have a hankering for the good life. We all know there's a Mario's Castle that literally gives the charade away. And boy is he ever well-compensated; a true petit bourgeoisie even in stature as Princess Peach is taller than he is.

Controversially, Nintendo is the commercial rights holder to Mushroom World - In Formula One racing, Berine Ecclestone invites envy for being the ringmaster to the entire show. Still, you cannot begrudge his skill in marketing the whole enterprise. And so it is in the Mushroom Kingdom as Nintendo has parlayed a thin "Bowser-kidnaps-Peach" storyline into a monster franchise. Just to show you the drawing power of filthy lucre, this collection of antagonists and imperialists collaborate in sporting pastimes if the commercial allure is strong enough: Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Mario Baseball, Mario Hoops, Mario and Sonic Olympics, etc. all feature ostensibly hostile characters engaging in sporting competition. Indeed, Nintendo has even introduced purpose-built doppelganger villains for pure commercial gain despite the narrative discontinuities of Wario and Waluigi. I won't even get into Nintendo co-opting Sega's characters and wiping out the latter's console-selling aspirations.

Likely, there has been much Disneyfication of Mushroom World. I am sure things such as pixel abortion and pixel euthanasia exist, but they are all sanitized to sell to a pre-teen audience the world over in a formula perfected by that elder stripe of master animator.
------------------------------------

So there you have it. Super Mario is not about communist revolution but of rival imperialists--Mushroom Kingdom and Dark Land, especially--contesting dominion over the wider Mushroom World. Do not be fooled by inter-character sports games, either. They're as jingoistic at heart as the 1936 Munich Olympics if you scratch beneath the surface. We all know what came afterwards. Mario--who has a castle of his own, don't forget (not bad for a "plumber")--is at heart a true royalist whose allegiances are strongly conditioned on...material interests.

Next time up (if there ever is one): I will use my namesake Immanuel Wallerstein's work to develop Modern World Video Game Systems Theory where the concepts above will be fleshed out further. Looking back, I've also neglected to explain the enigmatic Yoshi. While you can pretty much figure out which lands will occupy the core, periphery, and semi-periphery, I have yet to sort out Nintendo's overarching spatial configuration in the grander scheme of things. Circuits of capital linking Mushroom World with ours and all that transboundary stuff.

NOTE 1: Forbes values Princess Peach's net worth at $1.3 billion and at #15 on the Forbes Fictional 15. I honestly doubt whether such a paltry sum could maintain the splendour of the Mushroom Kingdom. Moreover, I am shocked--shocked!--by the insinuation that she is divorced from Super Mario. Again, there is no Nintendo game storyline that supports this unwholesome allegation. What kind of girl do you think she is...married to a Windsor?

NOTE 2: Given that I have devoted much space on this blog to sports since we spend considerable time and money following them, I believe we should now devote some attention to video games--the signature form of entertainment in the digital age. There are interesting and surprisingly nuanced boundary-spanning politics in the virtual environments which many of us have voluntarily chosen to enter.

Post Fukushima, French Still [Heart] Nuclear Power

Just when a nuclear power revival was supposedly in full flower, troubles with the technology at Japan's Fukushima facility are prompting a global reassessment of its costs and benefits. Yes, it's a virtually carbon-free technology. Yes, it weans you somewhat from importing fossil fuel from perpetually unstable parts of our world. But, as Fukushima reminds, safety challenges associated with the technology come in all sorts of shapes and forms. End result? The Germans are actually going backwards in forsaking nuclear power for old-fashioned coal power. Some progress.

However, the same sentiment is not shared by their French counterparts. As you probably know, over three-quarters of France's energy needs are accounted for by atom splitting. Such is their overall level of public comfort with the technology that few have complained about it in Fukushima's wake. The prestige of being the chief of France's nuclear power firm remains undimmed as its current head and that of the nuclear services firm EDF are battling for the honour of leading Areva (whose famous ad featuring the 70s disco hit "Funkytown" is featured above).

Part of the reason why nuclear power is so firmly entrenched domestically in France is that it sets an export base to sell these engineering wares. Although the French haven't developed cold feet in using nuclear power, the fear is that foreign customers may be. So, a primary task is assuaging them that, yes, modern French technology is more advanced (read: safer) than that of 70s-era nuclear plants in Japan.

For reasons familiar to those who've studied some European history, the French usually punch above their weight in international diplomacy, whether it's dealing with the aftermath of the global financial crisis or erstwhile arms customer Moammar's slaughter of Libyan civilians. Hence, it should be of no surprise to anyone that the French are once again at the forefront of proposing international rules to ensure the safety of nuclear power. To say that they are self-interested would be an understatement, but you can't argue with the sheer energy they put into jumping the gun. From the coverage of President Sarkozy's visit to Japan a few days ago in Reuters:

France -- the most nuclear-dependent in the world -- called for new global nuclear rules and proposed a global conference in France for May as President Nicolas Sarkozy paid a quick visit to Tokyo on Thursday to show support. "We must look at this coldly so that such a catastrophe never occurs again," said Sarkozy, who chairs the Group of 20 bloc of nations, during his brief stopover.

It was the first visit by a foreign leader since a March 11 earthquake and tsunami battered northeast Japan, leaving nearly 28,000 people dead or missing. The damage may top $300 billion, making it the world's costliest natural disaster.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan, under enormous pressure as he struggles to manage Japan's toughest test since World War II, welcomed the gesture of solidarity. "I told him a Japanese proverb -- 'a friend who comes on a rainy day is your true friend', and thanked him for coming to Japan from the bottom of my heart," he said.

While there is of course a humanitarian concern in assisting the Japanese deal with their nuclear woes, you can't help but believe that the French are eager to lend their disaster containment expertise to once again demonstrate their engineering prowess to would-be clients:

France is a global leader in the nuclear industry, and Paris has flown in experts from state-owned nuclear reactor maker Areva to work with Japanese engineers. "Areva is one of the companies that will make the most out of a nuclear revival and therefore will be in most trouble if there isn't a nuclear revival," said Malcolm Grimston, an expert from London's Imperial College. "Certainly Sarkozy or France generally have a very strong interest in getting things moving as quickly as possible and trying to ensure that there isn't a major backlash (to nuclear power). France would be one of the biggest losers from that."

Other nations are also scrambling to help Japan. The United States and Germany are sending robots to help repair and explore the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant. Kyodo said some 140 U.S. military radiation safety experts would soon visit to offer technical help.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which says the situation at the Fukushima plant remains very serious, already has two teams in Japan, monitoring radiation levels. The Japanese disaster, the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986, has appalled the world and revived heated debate over the safety and benefits of atomic power.

It isn't hard to decipher where the French stand on this issue alongside their nuclear national champions. As the events in Japan unfold, they're busy lauding loan guarantees the US is making for developers of new nuclear power plants Stateside. The business of atom splitting will go on for the French.

The PR Art of Selling Authoritarian Regimes?

Here we go again with the alleged dark arts of the marketing trade. Flipping through the London dailies, there's apparently a new cause celebre here in Britain. And no, I'm not talking about fish pedicures--that's so 2010, dahling. As a business major from days long gone, I think of marketing concepts as general-purpose tools of persuasion whose principles can be applied in many realms--selling products, services, candidates, or even countries. (Remember the notion of "nation branding.") As you will read, it turns out that among the most avid users of advertising and public relations services here in Blighty are authoritarian regimes from the Middle East and elsewhere. For the benefit of IPE Zone's international readers, the graphic to the right is supposedly illustrative of these activities--Persil is a major brand of detergent sold by Unilever here in the UK.

On one hand, you can say that it's a perfectly legitimate enterprise. For instance, any number of them are keen on branding themselves as financial services and tourist destinations in that part of the world. Bahrain has (had?) seats to fill for its F1 race, for instance, On the other hand, you have articles like what follows that attribute more sinister motives to these activities in attempting to conceal blood on their hands while suppressing dissent. Reputation laundering, they call it. Which way you see it is up to you. From the Evening Standard:

London's public relations industry has got a PR problem. Top firms such as Bell Pottinger, Brown Lloyd James, Portland and Grayling are coming under intense scrutiny because of their work for foreign governments or in regimes of dubious repute. The catalyst has been the Arab uprisings in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Tunisia, which have raised questions about the ethics of these PR firms. Critics claim that London has turned into the global capital of reputation laundering.

Bell Pottinger, run by Margaret Thatcher's former image adviser Lord Bell, has already faced protests outside its High Holborn office because of its work for Bahrain. But it is not just spin doctors working in the Middle East that are being accused of "propping up" unplesasant regimes. Tonight, opponents of the authoritarian regime in Belarus are demonstrating outside the Victoria HQ of Grayling because the PR firm has opened an office in the former Soviet republic. Actor Jude Law and playwright Sir Tom Stoppard are backing the protesters, who are then marching to the House of Commons to hear the two theatre stars speak at a rally, organised by Index on Censorship and the Free Theatre of Belarus.

Tory donor Lord Chadlington, boss of Grayling's parent company Huntsworth, is adamant that his firm is not an "apologist" for Belarus and does not work for any foreign government. Grayling's office in Minsk is just to help international clients keen to invest and explore privatisation opportunities. But Mike Harris, public affairs manager of Index on Censorship, says: "We are targeting Grayling because it is currently working in getting inward investment in Europe's last dictatorship and it is the only major PR firm in Belarus."

For Index on Censorship and other critics, there is a wider point about PR firms in dubious regimes. "They are not just the messenger," says Harris. "They try to normalise these regimes with nice pieces in the papers about holidays in these places and business features on investment. They are instrumental in keeping the economy of these regimes going."

If there is one London firm synonymous with this international spin it is Bell Pottinger - even though, as Britain's biggest PR agency, it also represents many uncontroversial UK household brands. Recent clients have included the Egyptian Ministry of Information, the Economic Development Board of Bahrain and the governments of Belarus and Sri Lanka, and it has also worked in Yemen.

I am of two minds about these practices. Positively, you can say that helping authoritarian regimes solicit business is welcome insofar as their citizens can benefit from the arrival of commercial opportunities. Negatively, you can say that these firms are indirectly contributing to inflows which help solidify these regimes' financial stature.

Unless you have a Bushian-Manichaean world view--or an intractable aversion to all things Libyan, for that matter--there are no easy answers.

Anna Chapman: Political Economy of Lousy Spying

Oh, I just had to make a post on this bit of kookiness out of respect for my boss. What do Andrei Arshavin, Roman Pavlyuchenko, and Anna Chapman have in common? They are all boosters of the pro-Putin United Front. I have mentioned the now-infamous Miss Chapman previously in connection with the notion of "erotic capital." As it turns out, I may have underestimated her hypermarketing in Mother Russia. All this because of being a rank incompetent at what she was supposed to do--spying. I am beginning to think of her as another Russian Anna who was not really a top-rank tennis player but was a looker nonetheless--Anna Kournikova. Men are suckers for this sort of this non sequitur titillation; trust me. In any event, Vladimir Putin is oddly singling her out as a shining example of modern Russia (after being deported from the United States from not doing her job right, obviously). She is also being feted by the Putin Youth, better known as Nashi. The Guardian sheds light on the Russian government's efforts to create a cult of personality around Chapman; she is even being advanced as a political candidate:

A month after their deportation, Putin joined up with the failed spies for a karaoke-type evening, where they crooned together the Soviet-era song – and unofficial Russian intelligence service anthem – "From Where the Motherland Begins". After that cosy night out, things moved fast for Chapman. She was awarded a top state honour by President Dmitry Medvedev, posed for erotic – and lucrative – photos for men's magazines, and was handed her own primetime TV show. She did, however, turn down a role in a porn film, despite being offered a "substantial" fee by the Vivid Entertainment adult-film company.

Hmm...you may not be attracting the right crowd when the triple-X crowd is knocking on your door. Then again, you might as well make some hay when the notoriety shines on you, I say. Fancy public office?

Chapman has also been made the face of the ruling United Russia party's youth movement and has been tipped to win a seat in parliament in upcoming elections. On top of all this, she has registered her surname as a trademark; has brought out a poker app and a slew of Chapman-own products, including perfume, watches and vodka, is expected to hit the shops soon. The 29-year-old provincial Russian also has a Max Clifford-type agent to handle "commercial projects", which include highly paid interviews and photo shoots.

And then, of course, there's the naked truth that all these commercial and political opportunities stem from Keystone Kops-quality "espionage":

The irony is, of course, that Anna Chapman is being rewarded for doing her job badly. Not only was she duped by the FBI into blowing her cover, but she apparently failed to turn up any useful information for Moscow. Espionage charges were not brought against a single member of the spy ring, as there was no indication that any classified information had been accessed. Prosecutors instead had to settle for charges of "failure to declare foreign agent status" and money laundering. Chapman and the other nine agents were exchanged for just four American spies. As US vice president Joe Biden put it: "We got back four really good ones. And the 10, they've been here a long time, but they hadn't done much."

Meanwhile, let's say the Russian blogosphere is not as taken by this dumbing down of public discourse as yours truly. I suppose that Putin's attempts to become the Eastern Silvio Berlusconi isn't going down too well with the intelligentsia:

But despite her ubiquity, it's arguable whether Chapman is popular among ordinary Russians. As ever in this country, it's the internet where people's true feelings find a voice. And Russia's assorted bloggers and message-board users seem to be unequivocal in their disdain.

"Citizen of the world Anna Chapman is undoubtedly the major hero of our vast country," writes one user on Live Journal – Russia's most popular blogging platform. "We all also dream of dropping our knickers abroad and stealing enemy secrets." "A true symbol of our time!" offers another. "How we need such people! Those ready to join whatever they are told to! To sleep with whomever they are told to!" Other comments are more explicit, involving combinations of the words "Putin" and "whore".

UPDATE: Don't miss her video interview, too.

Save Our World, Create Chinese Consumer Culture

So the post title is a bit hyperbolic, but not much. If global economic imbalances imperil the existence of the contemporary trade and globalization, then job#1 is alleviating them. In case you missed it, the New York Times Magazine had a very interesting article over the weekend on the challenges of getting China to move towards a consumer culture. While the US has swung too far in that direction, China is arguably at the opposite extreme. Both must change.

There are certainly many examples of PRC noveau riche splurging (see the accompanying photo essay), but that's not what will get consumption up in China but Jiang average opening up his or her wallet. I have actually written an academic piece that makes similar points--it's in China's best interest to become less manufacturing intensive on environmental grounds, revaluation of the renminbi will encourage domestic consumption by increasing local purchasing power, etc.--but I'll save that for a later day. In the meantime, the NYT article gets the general outlines of this story right, although I have more to say about the marketing aspects of creating Chinese consumer culture:

In China’s halting efforts to build a new economy today, there is an intriguing parallel to the United States: Both the world’s largest economy and its latest challenger need to remake themselves. As Guo bluntly told me, “You are facing transformation, too.” The United States needs to shift away from debt-financed consumption with little long-term benefit and toward investments that can create good-paying jobs, like education, infrastructure, energy and scientific research. China needs to invest less and consume more — to keep growing rapidly and, in the process, to stimulate economic growth around the world. In both countries, significant changes are necessary to create more sustainable growth. And in both countries, they inspire fierce internal opposition.

We tend to think of the United States and China as rivals, and they will continue to compete in coming years, over which will build the industries of the future and which will be the dominant power in Asia and the world. But our problems are also linked, just as the Chinese export boom and the American consumption boom depended on each other and, together, helped create the financial crisis. The worst outcome now, for both countries, might well be economic stagnation in China. That would slow U.S. growth and could lead to political chaos in China. The best outcome would be for both countries to reshape their economies gradually, benefiting both. In neither country will it be easy.

Also see another post that questions China's inability to create globally recognized brands, hindering its companies' abilities to move up the value chain.

Why Aren't There Famous Chinese, Indian Brands?

A very fair criticism I do understand as an undergraduate and masters level business major is the non-emergence of internationally recognized Chinese and Indian brands. While there is no shortage of world-renowned German (think automakers) and Japanese (think automakers and consumer electronics) makes, there are no real Chinese brands with similar name recognition, let alone one amongst Interbrand's Best 100 Global Brands in terms of valuation. It is very odd, don't you think, that the world top merchandise exporter which surpassed Japan and Germany in fairly quick succession during the past couple of years has singularly failed to develop recognizable brands. To no small extent, the South Koreans have managed this feat with Samsung (#19--my favourite brand and that of the computer I'm pecking away at right now BTW) and Hyundai (#65). Taiwan is no slouch either. While not on the list just yet, the likes of Acer and Asus do ring a bell among the electronic hardware cognoscenti. While India's rise has not been as rapid as that of China, something it shares with the PRC is a lack of recognizable brands.

A reply I've used in the past is that it is very expensive and time-consuming to build brands. Hence, firms from both countries may have thought it better to buy established brands. So if you can't build 'em, buy 'em! A few years back now--my blog is becoming "venerable"--I discussed the phenomenon of "reverse colonization" wherein Indian concerns were buying up British marques at a rapid clip. Think of the Tata Group which I like to think of as "ICME": Indian Company Making Everything for those of you weaned on a steady diet of Road Runner cartoons. Especially for Anglophiles, don't the names Tetley Tea, Jaguar, and Land Rover ring a bell? The same holds for China to some extent with the example of Lenovo buying the rights to use the IBM name together with its ThinkPad line of laptops.

However, these examples should not obscure the broader fact that a lack of recognizable brands is truly a handicap with IPE implications. Most of the value-added in the global supply chain emanates from higher-level, intellectual property-heavy concepts such as branding. Indeed, many global corporations like Apple are little more than a logo stamped on products largely manufactured elsewhere to their spec. With labour and other manufacturing costs in China not bound to stay at a permanently low level forever, there is certainly pressure to move towards these value-added upper echelons of the supply chain instead of being stuck with the grunt work. Despite much criticism about China's efforts to promote national champions to the exclusion of foreign competitors, it remains true that the Chinese haven't managed the feat which Germany, Japan, and South Korea have. Ditto for India with a somewhat longer time frame in mind.

While perusing a recent Business Horizons issue in which I myself have a contribution (more on this later), I came upon an interesting article by marketing bigwig Jagdish Sheth and folks at Interbrand and the National University of Singapore discussing this very conundrum: How can we speak of the rise of China or India if they are still stuck in the second division at building recognized brands? Make no mistake; this erstwhile "marketing" issue may have important social and environmental consequences insofar as China may hold on too long to labour and environmental arbitrage when it's in its best interests to move up the value chain. Here is the abstract:

During the past quarter of a century, Asia has risen to become the world's factory. This trend has, however, coincided with the relative decline in value of manufacturing compared to other value adding activities, including R&D, design, and branding. This significant “value shift” has eroded the margins of manufacturing firms and sparked considerable interest among executives in Asia to design, brand, and market their own products. To date, though, this transition from being manufacturing oriented to becoming brand owners has largely only been accomplished by Japanese and Korean firms. In the rest of Asia—including in the rising giants of China and India—there are very few valuable brands. In fact, there is not a single Asian brand from a country other than Japan and Korea in Interbrand's 2008 valuation of the world's top 100 brands. Our article discusses, in depth, the challenges that Asian manufacturing firms encounter as they try to become “branders” and how these challenges can be overcome. Based on our collaboration spanning academia and consulting, we have been able to tap a wealth of information made available through research, case studies, and Interbrand's database of completed brand related assignments across Asia.

Why does branding matter more than manufacturing nowadays? Here's a brief history:

During the past few decades, we have seen a significant shift in value away from manufacturing toward design, marketing, and customer service. This is in sharp contrast to the Industrial Age, when manufacturing contributed the most to value creation of all activities undertaken by firms. The Industrial Revolution was largely a revolution in manufacturing that led to a mobilization of resources and an increase in productivity beyond anything previously achieved throughout millennia of human civilization. The industrialization recipe also proved highly replicable, spreading across countries in Europe and North America before arriving in Asia. In just a few decades, industrialization catapulted Japan from an isolated feudal state to a modern industrial nation capable of defeating Russia, a major European power, in war. Industrialization subsequently spread across Asia in what was often labeled the “flying geese” pattern during the 1980s. This initially transformed the “tiger economies” of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Industrialization subsequently spread to other Asian countries including China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

However, during the past 25 years the rules of the game have changed significantly. In the post-industrial world, manufacturing is no longer the same engine of value creation that it was during the Industrial Age. As high quality products can now be produced anywhere, manufacturing has increasingly been re-located to emerging markets with low labor costs. As a result of these changes, manufacturing has largely become a commoditized capability characterized by substantial competition and declining margins. Those capturing the most value in the post-industrial economy now are firms which control critical capabilities relating to design, marketing, distribution, and service. The actual manufacturing of products is increasingly outsourced to manufacturing specialists. In this new world of outsourcing, companies no longer necessarily compete based on the manufacturing assets they own.

And here is what I believe is a key takeaway concerning the need for increased customer-centric focus as opposed to building "national champions" and similar nation-centric notions that have so far failed to achieve what they aimed for:

Defining the offering becomes the next key priority. This includes specifying the products and services that the company seeks to offer its target segments based on the key hooks identified in the market research. For many firms, this seems to be the end of the process to define the offering. We argue that it is equally important to look at the customer journey across all touch points; this includes marketing communications, sales, payment, installation, ongoing usage, and customer service. In short, it takes the perspective of the prospective customer, and follows how the customer will interact with the company at all stages. Only by aligning all touch points will the customer undergo a consistent brand experience. This means tilting the company away from traditional functional silos toward an end-to-end process thinking, with the customer at the center. Many firms we have worked with lack strong cross-functional teams that are empowered to operate transversally across the organization. Such teams are critical to conduct comprehensive feasibility studies and specifications of what it takes to deliver the offering. As previously discussed, it is important that the underlying quality and performance of a company's products and services are sufficiently high in order for the emerging brand to become successful. Achieving this usually requires a high degree of cross-functional collaboration.

It's a rite of passage that China has yet to make, but the authors do provide some thought-provoking ideas on how to get this task done. Needless to say, it's better accomplished through clever marketing than through protectionism. Proton, anyone?

And no, I will not spend good money on something called a "Chery Tiggo." More focus group work on naming products, pretty please.

Korean & Indian Carmakers Rise, Japanese Stumble

Let's talk about cars as affected by international currency war. We begin with more Japanese tales of woe involving the mighty yen among other things before shifting focus to more dynamic manufacturers in South Korea and, perhaps surprisingly, India. It may be true that Japanese carmakers have become less sensitive to the strength of the Japanese yen by locating more production abroad, but its home market is still quite important. And, with Japan entering its third decade of moribund economic growth, the current prognosis for local demand looks bleak. A mighty yen is sure to eat into sales figures as well after conversion. In particular, the recent withdrawal of government subsidies for retiring older models reveals that they might have stolen from future sales:

New vehicle sales in Japan tanked 23.2 percent in October, the first full month after government subsidies to replace cars older than 13 years expired, industry data showed. Excluding 660cc minivehicles, sales in Japan slid 26.7 percent, the lowest on record for the month of October, an official at the Japan Automobile Dealers Association (JADA) said. It was also the first time that sales fell short of 200,000 vehicles in October in 42 years.

"We have no way of telling how weak demand will be in coming months," said Michiro Saito, a manager at JADA. But he added: "Many dealers were fearing bigger falls of 30-40 percent, so in that sense we're a bit relieved." There was one fewer selling day in October compared with a year earlier. Among the worst hit were brands with a relatively high ratio of models eligible for the government subsidies, Saito said.

Nissan Motor Co's sales, excluding 660cc microcars, dropped 30.6 percent, Honda Motor Co's fell 29.9 percent, while Mazda Motor Co's sank 52.5 percent. Leader Toyota Motor Corp, whose hybrid models still enjoy exemptions on some taxes under a separate government incentive scheme, saw a comparatively tame fall of 24.7 percent, including its high-end Lexus brand.

However, the picture is not as bleak across the Asia-Pacific. South Korean carmakers appear to be doing quite well not just locally but globally as the balance of automotive power (OK, so I made that up since it sounds cool) shifts. There's also the matter of a Korean won that's relatively less mighty than the yen that's helping price competitiveness:

South Korean companies are expected to continue to outperform the global market in a weak recovery, driven by new model launches. Although the Korean won is firming, the Japanese yen, which hit a 15-year high against the dollar on Monday, remains far stronger, hurting the price competitiveness of Japanese vehicles sold overseas. Growing optimism for Korean car makers sent their shares surging on Monday, with Hyundai Motor shares jumping 6.2 percent and Kia Motors shares up 10.2 percent up in a broader market up 1.7 percent.

"Things cannot be better for Korean automakers," said Michael Sohn, an analyst at Macquarie Securities...Korean automakers are expected to log higher profits than Japanese peers this year, but their valuations are cheaper than Japanese makers. I expect rallies of Korean automakers to continue for the time being," Sohn said.

While demand for cars in developed markets [like Japan] is stuck in low gear on anaemic economic recovery and the end of government subsidies, global automakers have been increasing their focus on emerging economies such as China, now the world's largest auto market, and India.

Hyundai Motor, South Korea's top automaker, saw its sales rise 10.4 percent at home and abroad in October from a year earlier, while second-ranked Kia Motors saw its total sales jump 29 percent. The latest figures marked record highs and reinforced the bullish outlook for South Korean carmakers, which are expected to post strong earnings in the current quarter after reporting forecast-beating profits for the third quarter last week.

And let's hear it for Indian manufacturing! Long derided as a laggard compared to India's dynamic services sector, it is actually making it big:

Indian carmakers maintained double-digit sales growth in October on robust demand in one of the world's fastest-growing markets as a rapidly expanding economy, expected to grow over 8 percent this fiscal year, boosts incomes and consumer spending. India's top car maker Maruti Suzuki reported a 39 jump in October auto sales from a year earlier, while Tata Motors posted a 21 percent rise in sales. Mahindra & Mahindra's vehicle sales for the month rose 34 percent.

India's automobile industry is likely to grow by 18-20 percent in the fiscal year that ends in March, according to the sector body, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM). Demand in India usually rises during the festive season that starts in September and peaks in November after Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights, when most employees get their annual bonuses.

It wasn't too long ago in 1997 that Kia declared bankruptcy amid the Asian financial crisis, but look at it now. The world has moved on and Japanese carmakers should have ample cause for alarm.

Banking on Diasporas: The Case of Israel Bonds

Here's another serendipitous discovery I found merely traversing the Internet. While reading the Wall Street Journal online, I came across an advertisement for Israel bonds. Certainly, I don't need to tell you that funding the state of Israel is a politically charged act. Surrounded on practically all sides by those who've threatened its very existence in the past and still the epicentre of a religious dispute that almost never fails to rouse passions for and against, Israel isn't one for fence-sitters like yours truly.

A few days ago, I made a post on "nation branding." With the entire Jewish diaspora as possible components of the wider nation, there certainly is a large target market that might be suitable for a patriotic appeal in purchasing sovereign debt. And so clicking on the banner ad brought me to the graphic above. Clever wordplay aside, this effort to market Israel bonds stateside makes no bones about identification with the nation. Moreover, there is no doubting this effort has the sanction of the state of Israel.

There are also some appeals to the safety of one's return on investment...

Where the Money Goes: State of Israel Bonds Laying The Foundation for Economic Achievement

It’s a fact — a strong economy is built on a foundation of modern infrastructure. For nearly 60 years, Israel Bonds has been developing and expanding this essential component of economic growth. Today, Israel Bonds is focused on forward-looking infrastructure projects that will secure Israel’s place in a 21st century global economy.

Increased infrastructure development will:
• Connect cities and towns throughout Israel
• Create state-of-the-art communications systems
• Accelerate technological innovation that will attract billions in foreign investment
• Provide new opportunities for Israelis from all walks of life

It's very interesting stuff even if it's certain proceeds from these bonds may go to less, how shall we say it, ad-friendly wares. While Israel bonds have proven to be a safe investment over the years, the point is that such considerations are secondary in the marketing material to identifying with the nation. Can successful "nation branding" in getting diaspora communities be another way of guaranteeing financial viability? I certainly think it's worth a try for others--especially if they can evoke as strong a commitment.

"Nation Branding" in the Global Political Economy

Nation branding: The strategic self-presentation of a country with the aim of creating reputational capital through economic, political and social interest promotion at home and abroad (Gyorgy Szondi)

It is perhaps inescapable in this day and age that countries keen on promoting tourism embark on "nation branding." As a marketing major from my undergraduate years, I tend to see this world through such a perspective. For instance, the Chinese brand is certainly beating the American one in the global political economy sweepstakes as the former's more easygoing and less hypocritical approach to making friends and influencing people is certainly upending the Yankee flunkies on virtually every continent.

Today, however, I will relate the example of a "nation branding" exercise gone awry that belies the imagination. Apparently, the Danish tourist authorities thought up a campaign involving someone portraying an unwed mother parading her son on YouTube (see clip above). While tending to the little 'un, she narrates a story in which she got drunk, had fun in bed, and woke up to discover that the father to-be had fled Denmark. So, she appeals for the (foreign) father to come forward. As it turns out, the storyline was entirely concocted for tourist promotion. Worse, the confusion that it caused has been immense while offending many Danes. Instead of portraying an uplifting image, some thought it depicted Denmark as a land of dumb, easy blondes. Many thought it was a condom ad and not any sort of tourist promotion ad:

In September 2009, VisitDenmark, the tourism arm of the Danish government, launched a marketing campaign on YouTube. The video introduced to the world a beautiful 20-something blonde protagonist, Karen, and her adorable baby, August. Nothing quite extraordinary there, except that Karen had a small Mama Mia problem – she had no idea who August's father is.

Speaking candidly into a webcam and computer microphone, Karen related a story of how she had met the August's father some 1.5 years ago. He was visiting Denmark, presumably as a tourist. They went to a bar, got drunk and went back to her place. He was gone by the time she awoke in the morning.

Karen explained that she could not recall the name of the man that she had slept with or his country of origin, but that she would like to get in touch with him again. She is certain that he is August's father as she had not been with any other man ever since. She was hoping, through the powers of the internet, that her message would somehow reach this man. To add a final catalytic touch on this viral video to be, Karen recruited her audience, towards the end of her video plea, to help in her search. There was no indication anywhere within the video or on the webpage to suggest that VisitDenmark was, in any shape or form, involved. Also, the story was fabricated – entirely.

The video spread quickly; more than 200,000 views in 24 hours. Many people were engaged and responded empathetically. They also did as 'Karen' had asked and shared the link with friends. The national media quickly took the bait as well, appealing for information that could possibly shed light on this overnight internet sensation.

In just four days, the YouTube counter showed more than 770,000 views. But by that time, the Danish media had exposed the hoax. People wrote emails and letters to newspapers, claiming that 'Karen' is an actress, and, as far as they were aware, not a mother. What followed was a massive public outcry. Those who were kind enough to share the video felt duped. Some opposed the portrayal of Danish women as irresponsible and 'easy'. Many felt it was an inappropriate use of taxpayer money as the video misrepresented their country and culture.

VisitDenmark's rationalisation, that it reflected the country's liberal ideals, did little to calm the furore. Following a storm of criticism, the tourism organisation's director issued an official apology and stepped down. The video stayed online for a mere two weeks.

It might not be necessary for tourism campaigns to be understood or liked by the locals, said Rhonda S. Zaharna, an associate professor at American University's School of Communications. "But the one thing that I found was that great campaigns usually enjoy strong, positive, internal resonance. That's when you know you've hit the nail on the head and you've got that defining campaign."

Speaking at Global Strategic Thinking: Managing Public Relations in a 21st Century Global Society – a conference organised by SMU's Lee Kong Chian School of Business and the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore – Zaharna explained that nation branding campaigns walk the tightrope between managing 'image' (how others perceive the nation) and 'identity' (how the nation and its people see themselves).

And me? I'm kind of excited to visit Denmark again. I've always wanted to er, see Legoland ;-) This stuff is very interesting indeed. Certainly, tourist promotion is not an activity to be taken lightly. In fact, I have come up with my own viral campaign for the United States. Really. Given America's fearsome weight management issues, I've decided to turn them into something positive. See for yourselves:

I kill myself, but not via burgers and shakes, baby.

World Cup's Curse of Nike (& Bad American Mojo)

Leave it to an American company to mess up its advertising efforts at the 2010 World Cup, bigtime. Oftentimes, listening to Americans talk about football is like listening to Obama talk about deficit reduction--an exercise in raucous hilarity since they so obviously don't know what they're talking about. So, we shouldn't expect much better when an American company opens its wallet while choosing the wrong ad pitchmen for the biggest football tournament on Earth. Sure, the Adidas Jabulani ball received some bad press from those who couldn't master it like Uruguay's Diego Forlan, but when it came down to it, the Spanish victors still wore the three stripes. Which, of course, leaves us with Nike. In essence, it banked on the most highly compensated and recognizable names to strike gold in South Africa but ended up with a bevy of own goals.

I first glimpsed the three-minute-segment above on ITV. Nike feted the Alejandro G. Iñarritu-directed "Write the Future" prior to the World Cup. Given the characters involved and that a typical ad segment lasts 30 seconds, you can bet it cost a a small fortune. Worse, extended involvement in this megabuck commercial seems to have predicted World Cup failure (some Spanish players appear in a cameo but for less than 3 seconds or so). Consider what happened to some of the prominent characters involved:

• Didier Drogba - His Ivory Coast crashed out of group stage;
• Fabio Cannavaro - Italy didn't make it out of the group stage, defending champs didn't win a single match;
• Wayne Rooney - much-hyped England star didn't score in a second straight World Cup, England thumped by (Adidas-clad) Germany 4-1 in second round;
• Theo Walcott - England midfielder was left at home by Don Fabio after not following orders and didn't go to South Africa;
• Franck Ribery - Also didn't score a single goal as France went on strike, didn't make it past the group stage
• Ronaldinho - Former Brazilian team coach Dunga left him at home, too
• Cristiano Ronaldo - Scored only once as Portugal wasn't able to in three of four matches; left South Africa a "broken man" [?!]

Friends, if there's any firm that best epitomizes the current American spirit for spending big on losers, it's Nike. Just as the American government spends hundreds of billions on pointless, non-stimulating stimulus, so did Nike waste millions featuring non-performers in its ads. Alas, it was rather subprime. But hey, in its own way Nike does "Write the Future" of the US, eh? Crass commercialism imitates life or something like that.

When an ordinary octopus at a humble German water park gets oodles more attention and its predictions right, I guess that says something about the future of sports marketing. Creativity and spontaneity often attract favourable public attention in a way doomed megabuck play-it-safe efforts don't. It's the private sector equivalent of ladling out pork. I guess some people never learn: Nike, just don't do it.

Michel Foucault, Meet FIFA's No Instant Replay

When I was a wee lad and didn't know better, I liked watching "pro wrestling" with its wacky, deliberately staged antics. My favourite moment would be when, while the referee wasn't looking, one wrestler would grab a folding chair and slam it into his opponent. When the referee's attention returned to the action after some distraction--a tag team partner arguing with the referee, a player's manager blocking the referee's view, or whatever--the opponent hit with the chair would invariably be flat on his back and pinned for the three count. Ting, ting, ting! An instant "controversial" decision designed to elicit heated discussion among commentators and fans alike.

On the face of it, there is no explicable reason as to why instant replay is still not sanctioned by FIFA despite several football associations, players, owners, and who else have you clamouring for the technology. During the qualifying stages for the World Cup, France famously "defeated" Ireland via a Thierry Henry handball. The pathetic display by the French team during the World Cup itself only soured matters further. Today, we had two more sorry incidents that could've been resolved easily with instant replay. First, England's Frank Lampard had a fine strike that was disallowed since the officials weren't paying attention (in true "pro wrestling" fashion). Insofar as it would've tied the game 2-2, it certainly was a turning point in the game. Second, Mexico was incensed when the first goal by Argentina's Carlos Tevez was allowed to stand when he was clearly offside.

Now, any reasonable person would think FIFA President Sepp Blatter couldn't stop this avalanche of criticism regarding what were clearly poor decisions. In terms of procedural justice, it makes little sense. Yet, in the wake of the Thierry Henry handball incident, FIFA decided otherwise:

The International Football Association Board has ruled out the use of goal-line technology and video replays. "The door is closed. The decision was not to use technology at all," said Fifa general secretary Jerome Valcke [my emphasis]. The decision was reached after watching presentations of two systems, Cairos - a chip inserted in a ball, and Hawk-Eye - used in tennis and cricket.

The Football Association and Scottish Football Association had both voted in favour of further experiments. FA chief executive Ian Watmore was outvoted after the Irish FA and Welsh FA voted in line with Fifa. "In the end it came down to a difference of opinion about whether you believe the future of football involves technology or not," said Watmore. "We had supported the idea of investigating experiments into the use of technology on goal-lines and we would like to have seen it. But some of the arguments were very powerful and persuasive and we have to accept them."

Fifa has been under increasing pressure to use some form of technology to eliminate mistakes which are highlighted by TV replays.

As BBC commentators Gary Lineker & Co. noted afterwards, instant replays are banned from being shown on the stadium screens while matches are underway as to not provoke fan unrest over controversial refereeing decisions. However, during the Argentina versus Mexico game, a replay inadvertently showing Tevez clearly offside raised passions to the point that Mexican players were positively livid at halftime.

My French flatmate probably has it right: bad decisions are allowed to stand not in spite of technology, but because of deliberate design. Now, some French tend to be utterly cynical people who hold much in contempt (like "reality"), hence the entire postmodern genre that stands in stark contrast to the often dangerous naivete of the Americans.

If you go by Michel Foucault, disuse of instant replay is akin to enabling "tactical polyvalence": Powerful folks like FIFA honcho Blatter would rather retain the randomness of human errors of judgement not because the technology doesn't exist to make better informed decisions, but to make things livelier--to give commentators, fans, and the rest of the circus maximus that is world football something to fume about long after the action on the field is finished. Doing so can build rivalries. The storied England versus Germany one traces much of its history to the disputed goal of the 1966 final by Geoff Hurst. Today, many wags noted that England's goal being counted in 1966 was levelled out by today's judgment that a clear goal wasn't so.

And so the storied rivalry continues as counterfactuals that can never be proven will linger. Would the game have turned out differently had Lampard's clear goal been allowed to stand? Perhaps the English side would've continued in better spirits and not have felt hard done by, leading to an eventual victory. Could've, should've, would've. Regret is the stuff of high drama. Or, you can take the postmodern interpretation: perhaps Blatter foresaw the spectacle arising from such debacles. Imbibing pro wrestling "hit 'em with a chair" logic, the German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer has admitted to (quite successfully) pretending that the ball didn't go in by gathering it quickly and giving it the boot.

Surely, future fan interest on both sides will be driven by the build-up of these incidences. For, the bumbling referees without instant replay are meant to show incompetence like distracted referees in pro wrestling. That is, they play the villains others love to hate. And, in so doing, they create more perceived slights that must be avenged during future events that promise atonement--or, in the continued absence of instant replay, more controversial decisions meant to last a lifetime.

Final verdict after 90 minutes (+ stoppage time): Foucault = cynical, brilliant. Blatter = cynical, brilliant. Heck, WWE = cynical, brilliant, It's good marketing, pure and simple!

29/6 UPDATE: Or maybe not. Blatter has apologized to the English and Mexican football associations and seeks to reopen investigation of instant replay when FIFA reconvenes in July.

29/6 UPDATE 2: The text of the initial ruling maintaining the disuse of instant replay does indeed highlight Blatter's idea that controversy is part of the package in addition to quite frankly dubious assertions about the cost of introducing instant replay:

The human aspect: no matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else? It is often the case that, even after a slow-motion replay, ten different experts will have ten different opinions on what the decision should have been.

Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport [my emphasis]...

The financial aspect: the application of modern technologies can be very costly, and therefore not applicable on a global level. Many matches, even at the highest level, are not even televised. For example, we have close to 900 preliminary matches for the FIFA World Cup™, and the same rules need to be applied in all matches of the same competition. The rules need to be the same for all association football matches worldwide.

The experiments conducted by companies on technology in football are also expensive. The decision of the IFAB, after careful consideration and examination of studies conducted in recent years, to give a clear answer on technology in football is also positive in this regard as these companies will now not spend significant amounts of money on projects which in the end will not be implemented.