Has globalisation gone too far?

Some years ago we came up with the tag line - 'Think globally, market locally'. At least we thought we had come up with that statement ourselves, but it now seems widely used . We used it to explain how we were developing products to achieve high volumes, but to wrap them up with  the finishing detail that made then acceptable to the local markets and above all sell through a local presence, with local post sales support. Today it is called 'globalisation' and guess what, suddenly its a bad thing.

The enabling technologies were the reality of global communications and container ships with automated container handling ports, making manufacture in far away and low cost locations not only possible, but the cheapest option.  So the Far East, the tiger economies and China became the cheapest places to make the products that the western markets desired. But the situation is changing as robotics and AI evolve so that the cost of labour becomes a much smaller factor in the product cost. The benefit of high volumes to achieve lowest unit cost became not only less relevant but as the offshore locations become wealthier, so the pressure on labour costs led to wage rises and the savings from making off shore became a lot less attractive.

Soon the attraction of low cost labour achieved by manufacturing offshore that it once offered when labour was, say 80% of product cost, becomes even less attractive when robotics eliminate much of the unskilled labour. Goods that still have to be shipped halfway round the world, with quantity forecasts made 6 months or more in advance, quality remotely monitored and then local manufacture seems attractive again. Local manufacture can also deliver greater product customisation without large stockholding over heads.

One of the biggest issues with free trade is political intervention.  Political pressures to improve worker conditions in offshore locations raise manufacturing costs too. But the liberal, free trade philosophy demands free movement of labour and here is a major problem.  Millions of 'economic' migrants head towards the UK, Europe and USA to join in the wealth created by globalisation. Think about what has happened over the last ten to twenty years. Many large manufacturers and service industries such as call centres moved that part of their operation to off shore locations, because when all sums were done it saved money. But it ignored workers' conditions, environmental regard for which the west legislated. Western countries to a large extent ceased to be manufacturing nations, with instead products now made anywhere it was cheap to do so. Global brands added another twist by locating their head offices in low tax environments and often avoiding paying any tax at all in the markets where the sales were made. Huge profits were made, but the wealth was not evenly distributed.

And all the time the political classes seemed to be content as the west moved to a post industrial society. Technology was changing the idea that manufacturing provided jobs for large sectors of the population. When I was a student in Birmingham in the 1970s, thousands walked, cycled or took a bus to feed the labour needs of industry. Same in north London where I  worked, the Great Cambridge Road in  Enfield was lined with factories, most long since demolished and replaced by supermarkets and retail outlets. In the post industrial era the work force  is to a large extent in low paid service jobs, often on zero hours contracts.

All this change has had a profound impact on the populations who once their desire for low cost electronics goods, fashion and pre-packaed food is met wonder what the political classes are actually doing for them.  They can't go offshore to drive down costs and avoid taxes. Small businesses such as ours pay more corporation tax than many global businesses sheltering in tax havens. And small businesses are 99% of UK businesses, employing staff with all the on-costs of EU legislation, paying taxes and also being the seeds for future employment. And as the old class divides between employer and employee breakdown and while the political elite focus on big multi-national businesses, the traditional political parties seem to no longer represent a growing constituency of worker-owners, so is it surprising they vote in the UK to leave the EU and in America elect Donald Trump precisely because there is no political baggage.

The enduring power of images, logos and symbols

It is not just commercial brands that recognise the power of an image, logo or symbol to re-inforce loyalty to their products. But who would have thought that the poppy emblem could be considered a political statement?

And who would have imagined that an organisation like the international football association of all people would rule that players in the England v Scotland international taking place on 11th November should be banned from wearing a poppy on their shirts. Leave aside the alleged web of corruption that the world's footballing bosses have created in their own affairs which must give little credibility to this particular edict and think about the reasons why the poppy is so powerful a symbol. Football is a big money sport. Some years ago we provided the on-shirt branding artwork for a newly promoted Premier League club. I  don't recall the detail or the sponsor, but the concern was very much about size! But Remembrance Day is a time for just that - remembrance, where we stop for a minute of silence. Anyone who has attended a major football game will testify to the sudden and complete silence observed by an otherwise noisy crowd of tens of thousands. Although stopping at 11 am on the 11th day of November owes its origins to the end of the First World War today we think about casualties from both the world wars and casualties in more recent conflicts. And interestingly today the event is probably marked by more people than it was twenty or thirty years ago. November is often a cold damp month which we dubbed the 'Shiver Parade' when assembled around the local war memorial on the nearest Sunday to the 11th.

The poppy has come to symbolise all of this and more in a very powerful way. We were fortunate in our family that none of my grandfather's or father's generation who served in WW1 and WW2 incurred casualties. They were termed as 'volunteers' which was a generous interpretation of the meaning of the word suggesting as it does there was some other option. My grandfather some how survived the front line trenches of WW1. My father was recruited to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve during the Second World  War. And conflict still goes on. My own children have opted for service careers.

This Friday we shall be thinking of those still serving in active roles not just those from the past, including an RAF officer serving somewhere in the world united by the wearing of the poppy wherever we are.

The power of the right picture to a news story

The right picture can often often considerably enhance a news story. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

For most b-2-b marketing people hiring a professional photographer to create an image to accompany every press release is often beyond the budget. Usually clients supply  a photograph to accompany a press release which has been taken by someone in the company and only occasionally a professionally taken photograph is available. With the quality available from digital cameras and iPhones, pictures often destined for publication on a  news web site there should be no problems in taking and providing a good picture. The pictures to go with the story are often the first thing I look at. And often I  am disappointed although my assessment is not as a professional photographer, but selecting a picture for its contribution to the news story.

There are some basic 'technical' issues that should be avoided in taking your own photos. The main concerns are when the subject is out of focus, the lighting is all wrong and obscures the subject, the image is crooked and especially when a load of junk is prominently displayed in the foreground. I  don't want to spend a lot of time trying to fix the picture and anyway some can't really be fixed. Basic errors can be avoided, most cameras have an automatic focus, so submitting fuzzy , out of focus pictures should not be happening. Generally avoid shooting against the light, or taking a picture where light sources dominate the field of view and the subject is somewhere in the shadows.

Then when taking pictures of completed projects for example, at least make sure that left over building materials are not in shot. It is surprising how often discarded plastic cups feature in the foreground of pictures. And what about people? Exhibition stands pose something of a dilemma. Should we show empty stands as one manager of a German company I worked with, cleared the stand of people, had it clean and shiny which kind of sent the wrong message that it attracted no traffic. Should people be posed on the stand, or photos taken of people talking, so you get the back of a lot of heads. What it does need to be is interesting.

Some other things to think about are; is it relevant? Is it interesting? Is it appealing?

In some cases the mundane photo can be cropped to put the subject of the image centre stage, in other words, the eye is drawn to the subject the news story ids covering.

Finally is it free to use, have royalties to be paid and have you got to make credits to the copyright holder?