When the stated goal is elimination, the means eliminate, and the results are elimination, at what point do you begin to take them seriously? Sometimes I think an audience can be a little slow on the uptake, like George Clooney in this clip.
This week an associate was told by an expert he must have his label translated into French for the Canadian market. Odd that, since he has already been selling into Canada with no such requirement on the part of his Canadian customer. The product can forego the label for a 6 month period to test the market and then go to full bilingual packaging. Why pay to translate labels before a market is proven with actual sales? And enough sales to warrant the cost to the Canadians to re-label. You've got a whole six months to try it out.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
In 1972 Secretary of Ag Earl Butz said the agricultural policy of the USA is "get big or get out." Now, of course that means "we help big biz." No surprise there. But it also means we plan to get rid of small. I can catalog 100 ways small has been harmed in the last 40 years, and the results are there are far fewer small food businesses than there were. That is changing, but what the USDA gives the FDA takes away.
I am looking at Government programs to promote small business agricultural exports. A common term for small business is SME, or small and medium enterprises. SMEs are told to start they must have: an international marketing plan with defined goals and strategies, production capacity that can be committed to the export market, financial resources to actively support the marketing of your products in the targeted overseas markets, management committed to developing export markets and willing and able to dedicate staff, time and resources to the process, to meet foreign import regulations and cultural preferences, adequate knowledge in shipping its product overseas, such as identifying and selecting international freight forwarders and freight costing, adequate knowledge of export payment mechanisms, such as developing and negotiating letters of credit...!
The SME answer to all of these questions is “no.” Why would an SME bother to export when by definition an SME has not penetrated the entire USA market? If exporting takes all that, plus the risk and extra work, why bother? The deck is stacked against the SME, if one is to credit that list.
This week an associate was told by an expert he must have his label translated into French for the Canadian market. Odd that, since he has already been selling into Canada with no such requirement on the part of his Canadian customer. The product can forego the label for a 6 month period to test the market and then go to full bilingual packaging. Why pay to translate labels before a market is proven with actual sales? And enough sales to warrant the cost to the Canadians to re-label. You've got a whole six months to try it out.
The key is comparison, if an export sale is any less profitable or any more trouble than a domestic sale, then forget about exporting. Simple enough. But it is very possible to structure the export offer so it is just as easy and just as profitable (MOQ FOB).
There is another intangible conflict: many people who actually create food products to sell in USA have a flexibility and creativity that is inimicable to the requirements participation requires for the program. They built market in the USA without all that above, why would they need all that to export?
The MOQ FOB tactic common in small business international trade for some reason is unknown to these providers. I am doing my part trying to share it, but I wonder at the reticence. I know of the tactic from experience, and both USCensus and the National Science Foundation have arrived at the same conclusion from their research. It is no secret.
Happily I can provide a corrective via schools where I teach, in person and online. And the big advantage is I am the only game in town. But it goes on... I was helping a contractor on the East Coast develop a database of people involved in Import/Export of a certain area, so they could promote int'l trade to these people. I pointed out that people in the field obviously need no help, and there are plenty of people not in the field who could use some help. He agreed, but no, the contract was for what it was. Well, now that I know there is no one to help people who should be in business in that area, I can pitch my online courses to school in that area. I'll be the only game in town, again.
Feedback from a recent seminar:
Happily I can provide a corrective via schools where I teach, in person and online. And the big advantage is I am the only game in town. But it goes on... I was helping a contractor on the East Coast develop a database of people involved in Import/Export of a certain area, so they could promote int'l trade to these people. I pointed out that people in the field obviously need no help, and there are plenty of people not in the field who could use some help. He agreed, but no, the contract was for what it was. Well, now that I know there is no one to help people who should be in business in that area, I can pitch my online courses to school in that area. I'll be the only game in town, again.
Feedback from a recent seminar:
Instructor is passionate about the subject he is teaching and encourages an interactive session. Great knowledge transfer.I guess the difference is I actually trade for a living. There are plenty of people who know what I know, it is just that I like lecturing in my spare time rather than following football or golfing or whatever. To each his own. But I'll keep teaching until the 30 years of positive feedback gets overwhelmed with "he feel asleep in the middle of the lecture!" Not yet. Soon maybe, but not yet.
Kerri Evans
0 comments:
Post a Comment