The War Within Ad Agencies

Over the last few years a war has erupted within U.S. advertising agencies. It does not get a lot of press but I have observed it personally and, in recent weeks, have been warned about it by media salespeople, a few clients, and media and creative staffers at agencies.

The issue that caused the friction is the role of digital in annual planning. For decades, deciding on a proper media mix has always been something of an art although analytic tools made it a lot easier until about 10 years ago. Then, we moved in to the Internet age and now even the most moribund brands are entering the digital era.

The problem that I have seen and hear about weekly these days is that the conventional teams in both media and creative can not get along with the digital teams in both disciplines. Part of this is due to a generation gap. At many shops, an old-line media director may be 55-60 years old and the digital media maven may be 29. The old boy or lady is used to summoning the staff and giving direction and playing the key arbiter on all media mix decisions.  Now, the digital people are fighting back and, increasingly, there is bad blood between them.

Sales people who sell properties with many platforms go to a shop and are surprised when only the conventional team shows up. After the meeting, they ask the media chief if they should try and go see the digital media manager or director. Time and again they are told something like “why bother.” If they push things a bit and say that their company’s offerings can straddle both disciplines, they may be dismissed or shown the door quickly. When they do get to see the digital players who tend to be much younger, a snarky comment about the old fossils down the hall is often part of the session. This is sad and really destructive. There is a childish turf battle going on and the client is not always getting the best plan of the combined brainpower that is often considerable.

Friday, an agency CEO called me to talk about the issue. His is not a big shop so the people work on top of one another and he only has a few digital media folks and a slightly larger creative team. At a recent new business pitch, the media director folded his/her arms (I have promised not to give out any clues about identity) and looked away while the young digital manager confidently walked through his presentation. When he concluded the client prospect turned to the media director and said something like “you don’t like him too much, do you.” The media veteran denied it but the client prospect told my friend that it sealed the deal against his shop. He also added that he and his marketing team have been struggling to work out how much of their budget should go to digital platforms and needed a new agency to help them. He finished, and I paraphrase, “if your people cannot even be comfortable sitting in the same room with each other, how can they hammer out a solid plan for us with lots of give and take?”  Needless to say the moderate sized marketer went elsewhere. My friend says that he will decide for 2013 how much of each client’s budget will go to legacy media and how much to digital. He is worried that he is not qualified to play Solomon. He will play it straight and do what he sincerely thinks is right for his clients. My idea is maybe that he needs to make a personnel change or two.

Similar knife fights go on among creative teams unless a strong creative chief can keep everyone in check. It is not so bad at small shops where the director calls the shots and does a lot of the work. But once you get to midsized, there can be a lot of backbiting. Again, the client suffers (it reminds me of the two major political parties not compromising and making hard decisions on our budget deficits and entitlement problems. The good of the country always seem to take a back seat).

Forever, people have always said that the assets of an advertising agency go up and down on the elevator each day. So, you need to hire people who are crossbred, are not set in their ways, and are willing to work together even if their pet discipline gets a smaller part of the pie than it did last year. Hybrid media and creative pros need to emerge and fast.

This leads us to another issue. Agency structures were designed for a world that is gone. All of us wrap our arms around technology or at least pay lip service to it. But, many agencies need to be reorganized if they are to bring in new talent. Ever wonder why people go to smaller digital only shops for certain projects? A lot of great emerging talent is there and they give fast and cost efficient service.  And, they are not going to thrive in a traditional setting where a mossback of a media or creative chief thinks that they are trendy if they put 4% of the budget in mobile.

The other day someone wrote to me that he needs someone to translate his print ads for mobile. I laughed out loud when I read it. He totally misses the point. There are no walls to content. Something has to be developed that is uniquely designed for the mobile medium. He stubbornly wants to put a square peg in a round hole.

Look, we all know that we are in a transition period. But, the old guard need to take the “learn digital or die” warning seriously. The next few years will be choppy for both the economy and the agency business. If you are to survive or your shop is, you need to come up with some hybrid type model that takes us to the next great upheaval.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Inequality Puzzle in the U.S.

We are in the middle of a heated political season. Candidates are talking about the top 2% of wage earners quite a bit and how they may have to shoulder the burden of tax increases if we are ever to balance the Federal budget. It is all nonsense. There are simply not enough of them to cover the enormous expenditures no matter how confiscatory a tax rate you gave them via new legislation. Tax reform? Absolutely! Cut expenses and reform entitlements? You bet! A blend of the two seems imminent despite the political ravings of both major parties.

Most dub the top 2% as households earning in the range of $250,000-275,000+. That is indeed a nice income but, of course, it depends. If you live in Manhattan and are sending two children to private school and paying local taxes, you may find money tight and live in a cramped apartment. In a small Texas town you would be a leading citizen and living the good life at that salary level. As a statistical wonk of sorts, I decided to do a deep demographic drilldown on the people whom you don’t hear about as much—the top 1%. The results are eye opening and surprised me and I should know better having spent my entire life analyzing demographics.

Here are few factoids that set the tone for what is going on:

--The top 1% has an AFTERTAX INCOME OF approximately $1.3 million while the bottom 20% gets $17,800. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz expressed in a recent CNBC interview that the top 1% makes more in a week than the bottom 20% does in a year.

--The top 1% of US households has 225 times the wealth of the average US household. This is roughly double where we were in 1983.

--If you look at the INCREASE in capital from 1979 to the present, 88% has gone to the top 1%. The bottom 95%, which includes some upper middle class on down to poverty level folks, has garnered just under 3% of this capital increase. So, the top five percent has 97% of the increase.

In discussions with a few friends, we used this analogy to explain what is going on with the dispersion in the increase in capital. This is hardly original but makes the point:

Suppose there is a room full of 100 hungry people. A few men wheel in the world’s largest pizza cut into 100 perfectly equal slices. One fellow signals to them and he is given 88 of the slices and leaves. Four others step forward and they take nine slices as a group and depart as well. The remaining 95 people split the last three slices with some getting a bite or a few crumbs and most nothing .

Now, let me be clear. In a market economy, there will always be an unequal distribution of wealth. Some people work harder, some are smarter, some are more talented, and, let’s face it, some are just luckier than others. But going back to 1979, things seem to be getting more and more polarized in the US and the middle class is getting hollowed out.  It does not seem to matter if a Democrat or Republican is in the White House or which party controls Congress.  Inequality gets wider and the movement is relentless (see Media Realism, “The Gini Coefficient and the Future”, 1/21/10).

Since I wrote about the Gini Coefficient (level of inequality) 22 months ago, the US inequality had grown wider than in previous decades. If we keep up at this pace, I would forecast that our level of inequality would soon rival that of Iran, Uganda, and Jamaica. I would not want the US to join that foursome!

So, is America still the land of opportunity that lured our ancestors to these rocky shores?  For many of you reading this post, it certainly has been. But what, we might ask, of our children, our neighbors, and the generations to come?

Here are a few observations from my perspective:

--The politicians are fighting the last war. They keep harping on re-establishing the industrial base in the US. It can improve but millions of good paying blue-collar jobs are gone forever.

--Mining firms are now experimenting with robots to do underground digging for various minerals. This is great, as it will lower costs and put far fewer human lives in peril. When this technology is fully viable, thousands of good paying jobs are gone for good.  This is only one minor example. Technology of all kinds, not just robotics, is eliminating all kinds of positions. Think of the communications industry that has supported many of us. Remember paste up men, secretaries, and travel agents? Technology will not stand still so millions more jobs will be eliminated in the next few decades. Can we replace them?

--Our tax code is like a Swiss cheese. A 1% family can hire a top-flight team of lawyers and accountants to minimize IRS exposure. Nothing illegal here but perhaps some form of AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax, for those in the top 1% would require that they pay a flat 25% regardless of their deductions or exotic investments. This would not do much for the deficit at all but would instill a sense of fairness.

--Middle class people have most of their wealth tied up in their homes. As home prices have cratered, their net worth plummeted and some actually went to negative net worth as their money owed exceeded the current value of the house. Conversely, those in the top 1% often have relatively little of their wealth tied up in personal real estate.  Someone worth $100 million could have two $5 million homes but not feel it when the value of each dropped $1.5 million. They make more than that in tax favored annual dividends. So, the real estate bubble and crash of the last decade may have exaggerated things a bit in terms of inequality.

--The Federal Reserve is keeping the big banks afloat and, as a sidebar, is subsidizing the top 1%. High wealth individuals can borrow millions at 1.3% or so, buy high yield stocks, whose dividends can largely pay off the loan, and deduct the interest. The rich generally always live within their means and are the investor class. But, the artificially low interest rates from the Fed almost guarantee that they will get richer as they have access to ridiculously inexpensive money. Compare that to the millions struggling to make minimum payments on their credit cards at 18% interest. No one forced the struggling to use the credit card but the disparity seems out of whack to me.

--Why do you hear so little about inequality? Most people are not doing great but they seem numb to it. Are they too busy having a few beers and watching football? Occupy Wall Street had a brief blip going after investment banks but that died pretty quickly and did not get broad traction with most citizens (See Media Realism “Fado, Fatima and Futbol, 11/14/10).

--The American Dream may have become a nightmare to some but it still lives in the spirit of most people. Unless life has truly broken someone, most still feel that things will be better for them at some point and for their children. This spirit is vital and uniquely American.

If you want to keep on top of this issue and not have to wade through the weeds as I do constantly, you might want to consider occasional visits to Emmanuel Saez’s website—“Striking It Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in The United States.”

Over the decade to come, this polarization of wealth and income will affect marketing and communications in a big way. That, my friends, is a topic for another post.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The Emerging Market Middle Class & The Leaky Barrel

A few days ago I received a surprise phone call from a sports salesman. It had been many years since I had spoken with him. He was quite agitated and said he needed my help. Apparently, a long standing client and his largest was cutting back on his sponsorship package in a very high profile sporting event. The client was essentially cutting his commitment in half for the next three years. The advertiser’s CEO was moving funds outside of the US into some emerging markets.

My old acquaintance was livid. I understood his annoyance at losing significant billing but I had to tell him that this kind of thing was going to happen more and more to people selling to mature brands in the U.S. Local and regional media will likely be hit harder than national network media, I added, which really made his day.

Here is what I think is slowly beginning to happen. Many mature brands in the U.S. are treading water. They are firmly entrenched and work on paper-thin margins. Volumes may be high but there is not great pricing power. So, because capital always tends to move where it can get the greatest return, many marketers are spending advertising and promotional dollars overseas.

 Both consulting firm McKinsey & Company and the United Nations have produced reports saying that private consumption in emerging markets is at about $12 trillion per year. By 2025, that projection will top $30 trillion. So put yourself in the place of a CEO or global marketing officer of a consumer brands outfit. You would be foolish not to market your brands aggressively in Bangkok or Jakarta or Sao Paulo rather than maintain your share of voice in Pittsburgh.

China and India combined are together adding 70 million members of the middle class every year. We, sadly, appear to be losing several million middle class citizens each year due to a struggling economy. There will be ups and downs for sure over the next 20 years in emerging markets but the net result has to be a tidal wave of consumption across all types of goods be they luxury, disposable, digital or mechanical.

Also, a mere six countries—China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia have just over half of the world’s population. And, other than China, which will soon have an aging population, the others all skew younger than the U.S. and most of the West and Japan.  Also, keep in mind that the really explosive growth percentage wise will come from smaller countries in Asia and Latin America.

People focus a lot on tech and look at companies such as Apple or Samsung or Google. But, a rising middle class brings other categories explosive growth. How about something mundane like soap companies? They are growing like wildfire in Latin America and Asia. It is very simple—as you become middle class, you use more personal care products.

Imagine a young lad growing up on a small subsistence farm on an Indonesian island. He has an aptitude for math and after finishing the local school eventually finds his way to Jakarta and works as a clerk in an insurance office. At night, he takes accounting classes at a business college. He now shaves daily (a gain for Gillette, a P&G brand), uses whitening toothpaste twice a day (Colgate) and showers each morning with Dove (Unilever). These companies are beautifully positioned as millions more enter a middle class lifestyle each year. Why does KFC open a store in China daily and McDonald’s 2-3 per week there as well? Because, simply, the sales potential is enormous. Coke is now in all but three countries on earth (Burma, Cuba, and North Korea) and growth is interesting as per capita consumption levels are 80-100 years behind the U.S. in most emerging markets.

Years ago, I worked every now and then with a real character. He was undisciplined but a very dynamic presenter. New business was his forte. He pitched like crazy because he said clients were like a leaky barrel. You poured some new ones on top regularly but always lost some from the bottom each year.

My many friends in the media business are about to become acquainted with the leaky barrel. But, in this case, ad dollars are going to be leaving the North American continent forever. They are going to have to be very resourceful to find replacement revenue for some of the old stalwarts who are finding emerging markets to be a happy hunting ground for profitable sales growth.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

21st Century Economics--The Fusion Approach

George Washington, the 1st president of the United States of America, died in 1799. Some reports say that doctors applied leeches to the father of our country as he suffered in his final days. Today, doctors don’t use medical “wisdom” from the 18th century to help their patients.

Lately, I have been hearing the same argument regarding economics. Scotsman Adam Smith published THE WEALTH OF NATIONS IN 1776 which most students of history of economic thought would say contains the first outline and spirited defense of the capitalistic system. Why do, many ask, economists and a few politicians hark back to early thinking developed in the 18th century or the industrial revolution of the 19th century? They get angry when anyone argues that government may be the problem and rarely the solution.  I agree with that up to a point. Yet, to me, certain economic truths have more to do with human nature than theory. Greed, envy, competition, technology and progress were with us in 1776 and remain with us today. They dominate human action, which is how noted Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises described economics.

For most of the 20th century, the Keynesians slugged it out with the Austrians and the Monetarists. John Maynard Keynes of Britain argued for government deficit spending during weak economic times. The Austrians approved of a laizzez faire approach and letting the economy heal itself by getting rid of malinvestment. The Monetarists said proper control of the money supply would control inflation. During the great depression all the way up to the Reagan Revolution of 1980, the Keynesians dominated.  Then the Monetarists and the Austrians, both ardent defenders of the free market began to take center stage. After the onset of The Great Recession, a Keynesian approach of massive government stimulus came roaring back in to our lives. Now countries across the world are printing vast quantities of money at different levels.  This is unprecedented in measured economic history. All I can say is that once you start printing it is very, very hard to stop


Through it all, no matter which school of thought dominated, all basically spun their theories on the concept that consumers acted rationally. Yet, by even cursory observation, we see people daily who are not making rational decisions. Some 20% of Americans are morbidly obese and studies of recent vintage indicate that such a sorry statistic could double over the next 20 years. Is putting your health in harm’s way a rational act?

Behavioral economics (see Media Realism, 3/22/11) is a new discipline that is a marriage between psychology and economics. It studies how people often use rules of thumb from their own experience or copy the behavior of others rather be the classic “economic man” and act rationally. Increasingly economists are saying that when people are irrational the government should intervene.

All this seems to be leading to what a few people have dubbed as “fusion economics.” There will be a pick and mix approach among the schools of economics. If people won’t act rationally, a series of paternalistic regulations will take hold to help people make decisions that are truly in the public’s long-term interest.  (For example, the risky mortgages that many took out in the first decade of this century would be prohibited. People would not lose homes in the future as a result of irrational decisions)

For two centuries, economists of nearly all stripes had boundless faith in the ability of markets to determine outcomes. Now, many of us are questioning whether markets always come up with the preferred outcome. Sounds great but who determines what THE preferred outcome is? The current crop of bureaucrats, perhaps? Fusion economics will not have a core philosophy. Taking one policy from the Keynesians, the next from the Monetarists and sprinkling in a bit of Austrian freedom seems like an odd mix to me although I do find Behavioral Economics fascinating.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

The End of Men--A Review

On 11/7/2010, I put up a post that was entitled “Women on the Rise.” It discussed demographic trends in the US and some Western economies. With more women graduating from college than men, getting advanced degrees and entering law and medical schools it was inevitable that 15 years from now women would be leaders in law, medicine, business and academia. At the end of the piece I referred to an article in the Atlantic by Hanna Rosin called “The End of Men.”

Very recently, Ms. Rosin has expanded that article into a book of the same name (Riverhead Books, 2012). It is a fascinating read and her treatment of a very complicated and, at times, delicate subject, is very well done.

Why do things seem to be shifting in women’s favor? Ms. Rosin’s thesis seems to be that as the world has changed, women are more flexible than men. Importantly, as we have moved in to the information age, the service oriented economy is far more welcoming to women than the industrially dominated economy ever was. It is an interesting thought and, as you drill down in the details and demographics, the case is very well made.

She also talks of 60% of college graduates now being women. That, by definition, means that many good positions have to go to women in the future. She does not explain why young women seem more organized than young men and plan their careers with care while millions of young American males just seem to drift. Over the next decade this will cause an imbalance in society that we have never seen before. Women will be dominating in many fields with key senior positions. She guesses that high finance may be the last of the “old boy network” bastions to fall. More women may not ever marry as they are both very career driven but also will discover a distinct shortage of men who are similarly educated and sophisticated.

The top-line statistics regarding men are indeed a bit scary. In 1950, five percent of men in their prime earning years were not working—today, it is 20%
which is indeed ominous. In 1970, women contributed 6% of the family income while today it is 42.2%. That last statistic to me is a reflection of economic necessity not  just the advance of women. Almost all two income households have two incomes simply because it is necessary economically.

Critics have said that Ms. Rosin overstates things. Why are only 3% of Fortune 500 companies headed by women? Why are only 20 of the 180 global heads of state women? Sadly, they miss the obvious—demographics. Today, the pipeline is being filled with women college graduates and those with professional degrees. Fast forward a decade or two and women will be far more dominant. Demographics, as I have said in this space before, are destiny. This tidal wave would take a generation or two to reverse and, to do so, young men would need to get far more motivated than many are now.
Others say that this is just a blip. The real gloom and doomers have said that the men have been fired first in our long running economic malaise and the women will be next. Again, they miss the demographic certainty that is firmly in place. If three women for every two men graduate from college each year, then more women will be tapped for senior positions than men in the future.

Ms. Rosin has a somewhat rosy view of globalism and states again, with women being more flexible than men, they should do relatively better as certain industries shift overseas.  I am not at all sure about that hypothesis. Globalization is terrific for the consumer but some people always get hurt in the transition and women may be equally affected as men.

Overall, this book is modestly upbeat unless you are a 23 year old man who dropped out of college. If you want to get depressed, read “The Decline of Men” by Guy Garcia.  Written about four years ago, he says that millions of young adult men are spending way too much living in their parent’s basements playing video games, analyzing fantasy football leagues, watching lots of ESPN and some pornography as well. At the same time, an increasing number of young women are planning their futures with care.  His solution appears to be that men should get in touch with their feminine side and be more sensitive and communicate better. My advice to these young fellows is to get off the couch!

Ms. Rosin’s book is timely and well done. It reminds me how marketers have to start shifting gears with their advertising messages. As more women earn six figures they will not be only the primary breadwinner in many households but also the decision-maker as  well in any number of categories. Sales people will have to adjust as  these successful women will be very pressed for time. Mobile advertising will likely play a very prominent role with these high achievers. The die is cast demographically. There is no turning back on this trend over the next few decades. The odds will get stronger each year that your doctor, your  lawyer, your financial advisor, and your best customers will be women. Now we will need appropriate ad copy and media placement to reach them.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Don't Drink the Kool-Aid

Last year, I ran in to a former student. He was waxing poetically about his job and I was happy for him and proud to have played a small part in his success. As time went on, he spoke with increasing excitement about his company and what it was doing. Then, he asked me for advice. I told him that things were apparently going great for both him and his employer but I reminded him to try and keep some perspective on things. My exact line was “Remember, don’t drink the company Kool-Aid.”

The line is used frequently in North America these days. It refers to a horrible scene in Guyana in 1978 when Rev. Jim Jones along with many followers drank Flavor-Aid laced with cyanide and took their lives. Since then, it has morphed in to “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid” meaning that you should never have unquestioning belief in any company or movement. Some degree of critical examination is always required.

As I think back, I can honestly say that I was never a Kool-Aid drinker. Every place that I worked had strengths and each had shortcomings. But I never ignored the flaws of management or the weaknesses of some personnel or departments within each organization. Some of it I shared with superiors, some I discussed with trusted associates, and much I will simply carry to the grave.

I am not suggesting that you be a malcontent or a cynic. No organization is perfect and none of us are  perfect employees. But, if you can stay a bit detached you usually work better. Disappointments are few as you expect less than the true believers. You can simply do your absolute best and not worry about it. If another opportunity comes along, you are more likely to give it balanced consideration, as you are not in awe of your current management.  You realize that the grass may be greener or just different somewhere else.

People are forever telling me that their team or company or organization is the “best in the business.” I just smile. Some are indeed awfully good but everyone cannot be the best. And, it is important to have a certain pride in the organization that you belong to and the people with whom you work. But, if you drink the corporate Kool-Aid, you will likely begin to rationalize things sooner or later. Statements like “we are not overcharging, we are worth it” start popping up. Or “that client is an idiot and we know better” meets only with nods of approval. At that point, you need a reality check. Is this place ethical? Are we turning out a shoddy or dangerous product or possibly bending the truth more than a little but rationalizing it as we all drink from the company fountain?

In today’s world, you cannot just leave in a huff. There are mortgage payments, college bills, healthcare expenses, and not a great many really terrific available positions. If you try to stay detached and objective, your career decisions will be better, you can live with yourself and most likely will not be bitter in old age.
Being loyal to your employer is a very positive. Being blind to obvious shortcomings is not.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com

Global Marketing Monitors

Over the last few years as Media Realism has grown we have reached a point where, in many weeks, more than half the readers are from outside North America. Geographical readership tends to very topic sensitive but the European and Asian growth in particular has been steady.

Recently, some readers from emerging nations have written to me asking which countries that I look at to monitor marketing opportunities and a growing media presence.

The knee jerk reaction for most people would be the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Russia, to me, is mostly driven by natural resource wealth so I do not follow it terribly closely. China has a long-term demographic problem and India a demographic upside but they are both so huge that I do not spend nearly as much time on them as I once did.

My choices may be sharply different from yours.  They are Brazil, Turkey, and Vietnam.  While they are wildly different in geographic location, to me they have some common threads that merit my close observation.

Brazil, after decades of being an economic basket case, is now the eighth largest economy in the world. They are easily the largest consumer market in Latin America and their middle class now numbers over 100 million people. They are energy self sufficient with sugar based ethanol and five years ago, some huge offshore oil discoveries have sent major energy companies south vying for a piece of the action.

More importantly, Brazil has a wide array of trading partners. For most of the 20th century, the US was the dominant foreign player in Brazilian trade. Now, they are very well diversified and China is currently Brazil’s largest trade partner. They seem to have a portfolio of trade partners and unlike past history, are not overly reliant on any one nation. So, no matter how things may develop in world economic power over the next decade or so, they are in a nice spot with friendly relations with many entrenched and emerging players around the globe.  Also, they will not waste money on war. There are no plans for a Brazilian nuclear weapons program. There is still corruption and some organized crime but it is not the tinderbox of tension that you see elsewhere around the globe.

My second choice, Turkey, also has many trading partners. They badly want to join the European Union but only a small percentage of the country is geographically in Europe. The real impediment is that other E.U. member states appear not to want a new member state that borders such sensitive areas such as Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  Turkey has a fairly solid economy that, surprisingly, is four times the size of Egypt. They also have a good historical trading partnership with Israel which is unique in the Muslim world. Also, they have NATO membership that makes them something of a player with the US and most of Europe.

Over the last few years, I have observed a few Turkish package goods companies being bought out by global behemoths. The indigenous Turkish brands were competing quite effectively so a buyout was a workable solution for large international players to get a foothold.

Geographically, Turkey is in a unique spot at the crossroads of the old Soviet Union, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Per capita income is almost twice that of China and four times India so an emerging middle class will have significant buying power going forward.

Vietnam may seem like the outlier on my list. For someone of my generation who spent a few anxious months wondering whether I would be sent there in 1971-1972, it is strange to be discussing it as an emerging economic powerhouse. Many people see Vietnam as simply a captive of China. As wage rates have increased in many parts of China, Vietnam has benefited as manufacturing has moved towards their eager and efficient work force. If China has difficulties long term, does this mean that Vietnam is toast? No, not at all if they can work with and trade with far flung neighbors as Brazil and Turkey have. Media wise, the Vietnam press and broadcast entities are still government controlled and laced with Marxist-Leninist rhetoric but that seems to have little effect on production or the emerging middle class.

Each of you probably has your own list that you personally monitor. I would assume Indonesia, with the world’s 4th largest population, would be near the top for many of you. My point today is merely to give you my spin on an issue that any international marketer or investor needs to work on regularly.

Which nations are on your list? I would love to hear from you.

If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com