New Articles

Research Shows These 5 COVID-19 Changes Really Can Help Brands Grow Market Share

brands

Research Shows These 5 COVID-19 Changes Really Can Help Brands Grow Market Share

“We’re all in this together.”  “We’ll get through this and emerge stronger.”

By now, the entire nation is familiar with these COVID-19 era mantras that brands are repeating on the airwaves, social media and in stores. But have consumers had enough of COVID-19 communications? And are these messages really helping brands — not just in the moment, but also with the future in mind?

Because emotions drive consumer behavior, we need to look at how consumers are reacting emotionally to each message to answer these questions. From several major studies with thousands of consumers my firm has conducted, we’ve seen that the brands that connect with consumers emotionally and in particular have a positive impact on how a person feels about themself, are the ones that are most likely to be purchased in general. We’ve also seen that during this period when people’s work and personal lives have been upended and worry, stress, frustration and anxiety are running high, companies that make consumers feel better are the ones that will gain market share and be recommended during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Product offerings are one way to make people feel better. Brands are certainly stepping up to the plate by providing products and services that help people feel better by fulfilling a need for indulgence, self-care and control.

Just as importantly, though, is what brands are saying and doing.  Messages of togetherness and reassurance—such as in State Farm’s Ad announcing, “For now, we’re all living a new normal…we’re here to make this new normal feel just a little more normal,”—are indeed helping. So are the actions that back these messages up, such as offering 0% financing, delivery and generous return policies.

Some actions and messages are more effective at making people feel good than others. They’re the ones that will help move the needle as far as retaining and growing market share. In a study of 1,000 consumers, my team and I uncovered the following 5 things brands are saying and doing that increase the chances of purchases and customer loyalty now and in the future by making people feel good:

Saying we will get through this and emerge stronger

A full 70% of those we polled said that since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, they have developed a more positive opinion of brands that remind them “we will get through this and emerge stronger.” Two-thirds (66%) say they will definitely purchase the product when this crisis is over, and 45% say that hearing this makes them feel very good about themselves. Of course, there are different ways to convey this message. Guinness ads acknowledged that St. Patrick’s Day was going to feel a bit different this year, adding, “we’ve learned that over the years, we’re pretty tough when we stick together” and “we’ll march again.” This Coca-Cola ad reminds us that for every loss, there is a gain, that for all the scaremongering there is also care mongering, and for every virus, there is a vaccine–implying humans are ultimately positive and resourceful.

Offering exclusive hours for at-risk groups

It makes good, practical sense that numerous retailers such as Whole Foods, Target, Walmart, Publix and Stop & Shop are offering special hours to those who are most at-risk of contracting the virus such as the elderly because these groups are less likely to leave their homes to make purchases.  But these actions and the messaging behind them are also helping from a short- and long-term marketing perspective.  Four-fifths (80%) of the people we polled said they have developed a more positive opinion of brands that offer exclusive hours for at-risk groups since the COVID-19 crisis began.  Almost three-quarters (73%) say they will definitely purchase from these providers when this crisis is over.

Reminding consumers that we’re all in this together

This is another phrase we are hearing from brands over and over again. In just one example, Hershey’s recent ad Heartwarming at Home begins by saying that we’re in this together and that these experiences give people a chance to come together in meaningful ways. It ends with pictures of people connecting through windows, several feet away, and with family members at home, sending a clear message: you’re not alone.  And it’s working.  Of the people we surveyed, 73% said that since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, they have developed a more positive opinion of brands that remind them “we are all in this together, while 67% say they will definitely purchase the product when this crisis is over. Hearing this makes 42% feel very good about themselves.

Sharing reliable updates about the COVID-19 situation

Apple has released a new screening tool that allows people to determine if they potentially have the virus and if they should seek medical care. They created a new COVID-19 website and app with the CDC to help them understand how to manage the virus, and a Contact Tracing App with Google to help curb the virus’ spread. Quest Diagnostics’s website provides information about COVID-19, and consumers can sign up for email alerts for news and testing information. Although it’s helpful in the moment, being a resource for consumers is also likely to pay off over time: 81% of the respondents said they’ve developed a more positive opinion of brands that share reliable updates about the COVID-19 situation, 49% say that purchasing from such brands makes them feel very good about themselves, and 60% say they will definitely purchase from these brands when this crisis is over.

Reminding consumers to take care of themselves

Surprisingly simple messages such as Uber thanking people for staying home and not using their service, and Sesame Street explaining that “taking care of yourself is also taking care of others” during a campaign that features Elmo and three friends washing their hands to upbeat music are proving extremely effective for brands. A full 77% of those polled said they’ve developed a more positive opinion of brands that remind consumers to take care of themselves, and 57% say they will definitely purchase from these brands when this crisis is over.

__________________________________________________________________

Anne E. Beall, PhD is the CEO and Founder of Beall Research, Inc, a marketing-research consulting firm that uses research to create solutions for Fortune 500 companies. Author of Strategic Market Research: A Guide to Conducting Research that Drives Businesses (3rd Edition) and 7 other books on reading body language, gender dynamics, human-animal relations, and fairy tales, Anne previously worked for the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). She received her MS, MPhil, and PhD from Yale University. A lover storytelling and walking, Anne lives in Chicago.

amazon's

What Logistics and Warehouse Businesses Should Learn From Amazon’s Mistakes During the Pandemic

Amazon has dominated the COVID-19 news because of its ability to get some medical supplies and the reliance of people on ecommerce to protect them as they shop. It’s been a good time for the company’s financials, with significant increases in sales and secure positioning for its other services.

Unfortunately for Amazon, it was also in the news because of product mishaps, fulfillment concerns, worker illnesses, and poor handling of concerns. What the brand did, and didn’t do, can be a useful guide for smaller warehouse and logistics companies to follow.

The best lessons are from Amazon’s mistakes because few 3PLs and service companies are big enough to survive similar mishaps.

Take care of your partners

Amazon faced a tough situation, just like all of us. We all got some things wrong. The hope is that they won’t turn into long-standing issues. For Amazon, it’s unclear if that’s the case, but the thing with the most significant potential for prolonged harm is how it communicated and worked with its partners.

The biggest misstep from a partner standpoint would be when it announced a halt to accepting shipments from some third-party sellers and gave little guidance on what this meant. Sellers flooded Amazon’s forums to ask questions, and rumors spread just as fast as valid answers. People were upset, scared for their businesses, and frustrated that Amazon might not be a viable marketplace in the future.

While Amazon did eventually move back to allowing all third-party shipments for its FBA program, some harm has been done. Companies are looking at moving to do their own fulfillment — which was rewarded by the Amazon AI at some points during the pandemic — to prevent any future move from Amazon bringing an entire small business to a halt.

Amazon may be trying to tackle some of that relationship harm with efforts like waiving some storage fees or supporting more fulfillment operations. Still, it’s unclear how much harm happened.

Diversify and simplify when you can

An estimated one-third of top Amazon sellers are in China. It is believed to source some of its own products from China, and many of its smaller sellers also get products or drop-ship directly from the region. The spread of the pandemic and closure of factories, as well as shipping issues, then hit Amazon and its sellers quite hard.

Different points at the supply chain all ran out of goods or production capabilities, which started limiting what was available and hurt revenue for everyone involved. Diversifying sources and partners, both in goods and location, could have mitigated some of this risk.

Logistics professionals should look at regional needs and concerns right now. Identify where your product lines could struggle and if there are potential replacements for materials. If you’re a 3PL or providing other warehouse services, consider expanding to multiple locations. This can help you get goods to the end-customer faster as well as protecting fulfillment operations during COVID and similar black swan events.

Safeguarding people is just the minimum

At least seven of Amazon’s employees have died from the coronavirus, and the company has been very unclear about how many others have become ill. There is a new lawsuit by employees around the company’s contact tracing and potential exposure of employees — worth noting that the lawsuit doesn’t seek damages, just an injunction forcing Amazon to follow public health standards.

Throughout the pandemic, Amazon has taken heat for how it has treated its workers. This covered safety equipment and protections, sick leave and sending people home, and how it responded to labor demands. And, much of the anger is deserved.

The pandemic is scary and should be taken seriously. It was Amazon’s responsibility to make its employees feel like they were taken care of and protected.

Hopefully, this has served as a wakeup call for logistics and warehouse businesses. Your people matter, far beyond just what they contribute to the health of your business. There’s also a good chance your business will be judged by how you treat your teams. The world now makes much of this information public, too, if you need that extra layer of fear to get going and ensure your teams are safe, protected, and following the right policies.

Protect long-term customers and your business model

Consumers are spending more money on Amazon and shopping more often, largely due to the pandemic, but they’re not as happy about it. People saying they were either “very” or “extremely” satisfied with Amazon’s service fell from 73% to 64% from June 2019 to now.

The biggest frustrations have been delays in shipping and unavailable products. People view that they’re paying for the service, and its interrupted supply chain is still creating waves. Prime shoppers aren’t able to get the fast, two-day shipping on all purchases, despite being the most lucrative customers. Amazon has actually seen a decline in customer satisfaction over the last five years, according to that same report.

Growing discontent is a threat. Logistics and warehouse businesses don’t have the size of Amazon or the weight to throw around. If your customers aren’t getting what they’re paying for, they’ll move on to another service provider. The same is true if you’re late, damaging goods, or getting orders wrong. There are few real alternatives to Amazon, but there are many alternatives to all of us.

That’s perhaps the most important lesson in all of this for the logistics profession. Amazon needs to learn it before a genuine rival rises to compete, but it’s a good focus for warehouses starting today.

_____________________________________________________________

Jake Rheude is the Director of Marketing for Red Stag Fulfillment, an ecommerce fulfillment warehouse that was born out of ecommerce. He has years of experience in ecommerce and business development. In his free time, Jake enjoys reading about business and sharing his own experience with others.

checks

This is How Rooted Checks are in our History

If your company makes payments, I’m willing to bet you’ve at least Googled cost-effective ways to simplify the process. Perhaps you’re an enterprise making hundreds of payments a day. Or maybe you’re a small- to mid-sized business looking to ease the manual burden on your small-but-plucky AP team.

One of the biggest arguments against checks is that they’re just plain old, invented to support even older banking processes. Of course, the term “old” is relative, so what does it mean when we’re talking about check history? You might be surprised.

Checks used to make a lot of sense

Checks developed alongside banks, with the concept for payment withdrawals based on recorded instruction appearing in history as early as 300 B.C. in India or Rome, depending on who you ask. Paper-based checks made their debut in the Netherlands in the 1500s, and took root in North America about a century before the Declaration of Independence was signed. The oldest surviving checkbook in the U.S. dates back to the late 1700s—and the register even has a notation for a check made out to Alexander Hamilton for legal services.

So, yes, checks are old.

What started as a safe and strategic way to transfer money—one that protected merchants’ safety and livelihoods—ingrained itself in business dealings for hundreds of years. It’s challenging to phase out something like that entirely, even if checks are difficult to adapt to today’s electronic processes.

Hanging onto the past

Each business that holds onto its check process has a reason. Perhaps their AP team’s veteran employees are more comfortable with the familiarity of checks. They may wish to preserve business relationships with suppliers that prefer checks. Some businesses are very likely interested in switching to electronic processes because check payments are expensive—but they hold back due to the perceived process upheaval.

These concerns aren’t unfounded. They’re built upon years—and generations—of business experience. So while plenty of news outlets claim that checks will phase out “soon,” we should more realistically expect that they’ll be incorporated into—not eradicated from—modern business practices. At least for now.

Time for a change

While banks have made efforts to simplify the payee’s ability to cash checks electronically, only a few have attempted to tackle the time-consuming issues that their customers face. They also lack ways to incorporate outdated check processes with the newer ACH and credit card processes their customers are also expected to support.

If checks are here to stay, do companies need to resign themselves to endless signature hunts, letter-stuffing parties, and post office visits? No. Checks have the spectacular ability to evolve as modern needs arise. After all, the first printed checks in the U.S. didn’t have the standardized MICR format that we use today.

Change happens slowly and in easily digestible segments. So although checks aren’t going away any time soon, they’re overdue for another evolution.

A middle ground exists, where business owners can upgrade their processes without causing major supplier or employee upset. Payment automation solutions have been growing in recognition for over a decade. The most successful providers have acknowledged the gray area with checks and incorporated them into their simplified electronic payment workflows. These alternatives reduce AP workloads without forcing suppliers to accept payment types that don’t work for them.

Checks have come a long way since their conceptual days, and their flexibility means we probably won’t see the last of them anytime soon. We are, however, in the midst of their shift into the electronic world, and AP teams are all the happier for it.

Are you interested in the history of wire payments? Check out this article.

______________________________________________________________

Alyssa Callahan is the Content Strategist at Nvoicepay, a FLEETCOR company. She has five years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.

frozen

Spain’s Market for Frozen Crabs, Lobsters, Shrimp, and Prawns Totaled $1.3B

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Spain – Frozen Crustaceans – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the frozen crustaceans market in Spain amounted to $1.3B in 2018, standing approx. at the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price).

Production in Spain

In 2018, approx. 39K tonnes of frozen crustaceans were produced in Spain; coming down by -2.3% against the previous year. Overall, frozen crustaceans production continues to decline.

Exports from Spain

In 2018, approx. 44K tonnes of frozen crustaceans were exported from Spain; approximately reflecting the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.9% over the period from 2014 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 when exports increased by 18% y-o-y. Over the period under review, frozen crustaceans exports attained their maximum at 45K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, frozen crustaceans exports stood at $418M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Italy (17K tonnes), Portugal (10K tonnes) and France (5.6K tonnes) were the main destinations of frozen crustaceans exports from Spain, together accounting for 74% of total exports. These countries were followed by the U.S., Germany, Greece, Belgium, the UK and the Netherlands, which together accounted for a further 18%.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by the U.S. (+52.7% per year), while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Italy ($164M), Portugal ($96M) and France ($61M) appeared to be the largest markets for frozen crustaceans exported from Spain worldwide, together accounting for 77% of total exports. Germany, the U.S., Belgium, Greece, the UK and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 16%.

Export Prices by Country

The average frozen crustaceans export price stood at $9,432 per tonne in 2018, growing by 3.9% against the previous year. In general, the frozen crustaceans export price, however, continues to indicate a perceptible setback. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 an increase of 6.3% y-o-y. The export price peaked at $10,776 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was the UK ($11,039 per tonne), while the average price for exports to the U.S. ($5,359 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to the Netherlands, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced a decline.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

consumer

As Consumer Habits Change, How Can Businesses Keep Up?

American consumers don’t act and buy the way they did just a few short months ago – at least most of them don’t.

The pandemic and the need for social distancing led to an upsurge in online buying. Takeout and delivery replaced, at least temporarily, dining out. Many consumers, worried about the health risks of spending time in grocery stores, turned to services that would do their shopping for them.

Now, as the country tries to reopen and seek the next normal, businesses across the nation must figure out which of those consumer behaviors will become permanent, which were temporary, and whether any new ones yet unthought of might emerge.

“We live in a time when information can become outdated pretty quickly, and that’s become even more true because of COVID-19,” says Janét Aizenstros (www.janetaizenstros.com), a serial entrepreneur and the chairwoman and CEO of Ahava Digital, a company that ethically sources data on American consumers.

“The businesses that are going to succeed moving forward are those that grasp what consumers want and understand their changing habits.”

In contrast, those businesses that fail to understand what the latest consumer data is telling them, and are slow to adapt to the changes in consumer behavior, are going to be at risk, Aizenstros says.

She says going forward, businesses need to:

-Be prepared to pivot. Business leaders must be flexible. Many restaurants figured that out when the pandemic began, Aizenstros points out. Patrons could no longer dine-in, so the restaurants put an emphasis on takeout and delivery services. In the same way, each business will need to figure out how it can adapt and adjust its services or products to meet what customers want and need, she says.

-Gather reliable consumer data. With the internet, social media and numerous other sources, there is plenty of information available today about consumers, but not all of it is reliable. Make sure data comes from a quality source and that it reflects as much as possible the current thinking and behavior among consumers, Aizenstros says. “Businesses that fail to use reliable data and stay on top of the consumer trends,” she says, “will have a difficult time thriving as we go forward.”

-Take steps to make consumers feel comfortable. Even as people venture out more to dine in restaurants or shop in person, a Gallup survey shows they still plan to exercise caution. Businesses can help themselves by letting consumers know what steps they are taking to keep their stores, restaurants, and offices as safe as possible. “This is just another example of understanding and keeping up with what consumers want,” Aizenstros says.

Businesses have always had their plans and operations disrupted by both technological advancements and changing consumer habits. But rarely does consumer behavior evolve as quickly as it did in the early months of 2020 – and the changes didn’t always happen in easily predictable ways.

“Some areas such as home decor and fashion have done well recently,” Aizenstros says. “At the same time, we are seeing trends with businesses like J.C. Penney, Hertz and others struggling and filing for bankruptcy. It’s hard to keep up with consumer thinking unless your data is consistent, relevant and accurate. But if you understand what your customers want and work to give it to them, your business will have the opportunity to prosper.”

_____________________________________________________________

Janét Aizenstros (www.janetaizenstros.com) is a serial entrepreneur and the chairwoman and CEO of Ahava Digital, which provides businesses and investors with ethically-sourced verified data about American consumers. Her background includes roles in finance at TD Canada Trust, Canon, and Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls, along with management consulting in a broad range of functions, such as supply chain operations, data analysis, and strategic thinking. She has a doctorate in metaphysical sciences with a specialization in conscious business ethics.

B20

B20 Saudi Arabia – Positively Changing Integrity & Compliance Behaviors Across the Global Business Community

As countries around the globe push to reopen in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the business community is struggling with a temptation to relax compliance standards as a means to remaining agile and navigate a pressing shortage of goods and services. And yet these times necessitate an even greater commitment to integrity, one of the priorities the global private sector has set for itself.

The B20 Saudi Arabia, the voice of the global business community to the G20, recognizes the challenge posed by the COVID-19 health and economic crisis to both businesses and governments and has committed to addressing the issue of corruption by recognizing Integrity & Compliance as one of its key priority areas.

We already know the global economy loses US$3.6 trillion to impropriety yearly, a price we cannot afford in these times. We have also seen corruption is a key barrier to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as the elimination of poverty and hunger, improving education, quality of life, and the infrastructure of each state. The B20 Integrity & Compliance Taskforce’s work, therefore, aims to advance the global anti-corruption agenda, touching upon key relevant topics such as responsible business conduct, consumer protection, the fight against corruption, and other efforts at the foundation of a healthy business environment.

Recently I had the opportunity to interview Mathad Al-ajami, Vice President and General Counsel at Saudi Telecommunication Company (STC) and Chair of the B20 Saudi Arabia Integrity & Compliance Taskforce. As a prominent attorney and business leader, Mr. Al-ajmi has been influential to the Pearl Initiative, a global coalition of business leaders from the Gulf Region aimed at fostering a corporate culture of accountability and transparency, to ensure FCPA and UK Foreign Bribery Compliance are upheld within Saudi Arabia, throughout the Middle East, and across the globe.

During my interview with Mr. Al-ajmi, he reinforced that integrity is not merely anti-bribery, but rather something much broader. He believes that to create an open, transparent and legitimate world economy, the members of the global marketplace must be in alignment with the terms and conditions of participating in that economy, both for developing and developed countries. The goal of the B20 Integrity & Compliance Taskforce is to ensure a robust Compliance and Controls program that is repeatable, successful globally across languages, and able to be implemented proactively.

Mr. Al-ajmi also spoke about how developing economies and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) will bear the brunt of business loss from the pandemic, making it doubly important they are able to access monetary government support through legitimate channels. The most vulnerable populations, most often coming from developing markets, are those who are disproportionately impacted by corruption – corruption costs developing countries US$1.26 trillion every year and represents a major obstacle to investment, further negatively impacting economic growth and job prospects for these markets in the long term.

MSMEs, Mr. Al-ajmi noted, play a pivotal role in jump-starting the economy in that they account for more than half of most countries’ GDP and are responsible for almost seven in every 10 jobs. Often operating in difficult economic environments, MSMEs are highly vulnerable to corruption, although they may be less likely than large companies to be involved in large-scale influence-peddling scandals, which is why they are one of the B20’s cross-cutting focuses. Simultaneously, MSMEs typically lack the resources, knowledge, and experience to implement effective anti-corruption measures and conduct their business in compliance with international standards and the applicable legal rules, making their engagement a cornerstone of the B20’s integrity & compliance work.

The B20 will release its policy recommendations to the G20 in July in the form of policy papers to be drafted by each taskforce, including Integrity & Compliance. While the recommendations and priorities in those papers are not yet published, Mr. Al-ajmi outlined a number of key themes in our discussion that he and his task force feel are an integral part of supporting transparency in the global business community:

-Leveraging new technologies in managing the risk of corruption and fraud – this includes computer-based training and certifications in all languages using “real world” case studies that are language and market-specific.

-Leveraging Artificial Intelligence programs to monitor large amounts of data for specific corruption and integrity violations.

-Ensuring heightened integrity and transparency in public procurement through open bidding processes from multiple vendors, with specific certification criteria to ensure compliance with key laws internationally such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the U.S. or the UK’s Bribery Act of 2010.

-Collectively pursuing and legislating the implementation of responsible business on a global basis in each country, leveraging the frameworks provided by FCPA and the UK’s Bribery Act.

-Supporting code-of-conduct compliance programs to monitor capital spending as emerging market infrastructure projects continue.

-Continuing to align government officials with private industrial programs through compliant lobbying programs and monitoring.

-Protecting and encouraging whistleblowers but protecting businesses by ensuring disgruntled workers cannot destroy shareholder value through false claims.

-Strengthening corporate governance centrally and in global subsidiaries, such as through yearly certifications for all employees to understand governance regulations.

-Widely and publicly prosecuting bribery to set examples.

As Mr. Al-Ajmi reinforced to me, none of these efforts will succeed if we are not operating in a transparent, integrity-driven business environment. Ultimately, this is what the B20 hopes to accomplish through the work of this critical taskforce, ensuring integrity is part of the global business community and society writ large. I am confident the B20 and specifically its Integrity & Compliance Taskforce will have a positive influence on the G20 Summit and look forward to the release of the policy recommendations in July.

___________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions or would like help in the area of Compliance and Controls please do not hesitate to contact me at frank@ationadvisory.com or visit his website at www.ationadvisory.com

Frank and his team at Ation Advisory Group have successfully remediated clients from FCPA and British Anti-Bribery investigations. His team has implemented over 45 global FCPA Certification Programs and Compliance and Controls improvement projects which prevented violations and Improved Goodwill and overall value for domestic or international organizations seeking to sell, partner with a JV, or obtain contracts or new business with government officials and private enterprise.

Frank Orlowski is an accomplished Senior Finance Executive and Board Member with more than 25 years of success in the pharmaceutical, medical devices, contract manufacturing, and healthcare industries. Leveraging extensive experience leading manufacturing, operational, and financial strategies across 35 countries.  Frank has also implemented over 30 FCPA Compliance/ Controls Remediation and Certification Programs across 25 countries.

agricultural

Current Health Pandemic Shows the Need to Restructure Old Agricultural Trade Policies

Haiti is still rebuilding following the devastation of the 7.0 earthquake that struck a decade ago. Among an array of social burdens keeping this small Caribbean country in a perpetual cycle of vulnerability, food insecurity has been a persistent threat to its citizens since well before the earthquake. The earthquake exacerbated Haiti’s food crisis, and consequently, about half of the Haitian population remains undernourished.

In the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake, the country of 10 million people faced a dire food shortage. Approximately 25,000 tons of food aid of U.S. origin was distributed in response to the earthquake. Over 80 percent of the total dollar value of funds and metric tons of U.S. food aid allocated for emergency activities throughout Latin America and the Caribbean during the 2010 fiscal year was apportioned to Haiti. During the same year, Haiti imported about US$160 million worth of rice from the United States. Haiti needed to rely on foreign food aid, including rice imports.

Fast forward to 2020, Haiti continues to face severe food insecurity that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Haiti imported more staple food, for which the prices had decreased, by April 2020 than the previous year. However, the global slowdown on imports and exports, in addition to low domestic production and high production costs, have resulted in elevated prices on locally produced staple food such as rice. Haiti’s dependency on rice imports is puzzling considering that it once produced enough rice for local consumption.

The Result of Disproportionate Liberal Trade Policies in a Time of Crisis

As a supporter of trade liberalization myself, it is important to fully understand this contradiction by going back to the liberalization policies of the 1980s and 1990s, when many Latin American and Caribbean countries implemented open-market trade policies to grow their economies. In 1986, Haiti placed a 50 percent ad valorem tariff on rice imports. By 1995, with the support of U.S. President Bill Clinton, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank pushed structural adjustment programs in Haiti, which involved Haiti drastically reducing its tariffs on rice imports to three percent.

Rather than leading to economic growth, these policies resulted in an influx of cheaper, subsidized rice imports. Haitian rice imports increased dramatically from 7,000 metric tons in 1985 to 207,000 metric tons a decade later, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures. The majority of these imports came from the United States.

On the other hand, rice productivity in Haiti dropped significantly. From 1980 to 1990, Haiti averaged 124,000 tons of rice produced, which dropped down to an average of 114,400 tons by 2005-06.

Most of the U.S. rice imports come from Clinton’s home state of Arkansas. The rice grower in Arkansas has received billions of dollars of subsidies since 1995. Following the earthquake, Clinton stated during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, “It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did.”

The liberalization of Haiti’s rice market has created a cycle of dependency for the country, which becomes more evident during a crisis, such as the 2010 earthquake and today’s global health pandemic. Many Haitian rice growers have found it difficult to sell within their own market because of the inability to compete against the lower cost, subsidized imports from the United States. As a result, and prior to the pandemic, 80 percent of rice consumed in Haiti had been imported.

With the current global health pandemic, the United Nations World Food Programme estimates that the number of people in Haiti alone that face food insecurity will jump from 700,000 to 1.6 million.

In April 2020, the World Bank, which supported trade liberalization in Haiti, provided US$9.5 million to Haiti’s agricultural sector to address the deepened food insecurity resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, as well its impact on global trade. Ironically, such support may help the local agricultural sector to become self-sufficient again. Time will tell.

Awareness to Action

Haiti’s story is a familiar one in other regions as well, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. However, many remain unaware of the link between trade policies and food insecurity. For instance, in response to my TEDx talk on the subject, people have commented, “I had no idea about how these policies impacted so many lives.”

Similar to Haiti, the East African country of Tanzania is a net importer of rice, a least-developed-country, and implemented liberal trade policies by the 1990s. Local measures have been taken to reduce the effects of trade liberalization on Tanzania’s local farmers and food production thus, offering insight into three approaches to mitigate the negative impact of structural adjustment policies–acknowledge disproportionate trade policies, implement policies that support local producers, and build the capacity for local producers to compete internationally.

Consider the trade policies that restrict market access to local producers and create an unfair competitive advantage for foreign producers. Being aware of the role of disproportionate trade policies in the loss of food in developing countries and creating a reliance on imported food aid is the first step to developing effective policies and practices to promote higher levels of food security.

Tanzania allows for duty-free agricultural imports from other East African Community (EAC) members—Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda. However, it places a 75 percent tariff or $345 per ton, whichever is higher, on rice imports from non-EAC countries. This high tariff rate limits the influx of foreign rice imports. In 2018, Tanzania imported a total of 236 tons of rice from international suppliers. The majority of rice—180 tons–came from Pakistan. The United States only accounted for 16 tons.

Tanzania has since placed a ban on rice imports for the 2020/21 marketing year in an effort to boost local production. The US Department of Agricultural estimates a nine percent decrease in rice imports into Tanzania during this period.

The second solution is to develop policies that complement local production, rather than displace it. It becomes a win-win outcome when exported goods are not already abundantly available in a market for which there may be a growing demand. However, the export of staple crops already being produced in a lower-income country should add to the supply and be sold at market value to allow for fair competition.

At the same time, Tanzania has experienced increased imports as rising demand exceeds local production. For instance, in the late 1990s, food imports jumped almost three-fold only because of a decline in domestic production, rather than trade liberalization. Rice imported from the United States are mainly for food aid programs. The rice imports supplement, rather than compete directly with, local production.

Finally, trade facilitation and capacity building (TFCB) programs present a third solution. Such programs emphasize enhancing the skills of local farmers to compete in today’s global economy. TFCB programs can produce success stories, given that they are implemented under truly reciprocal trade policies and practices.

The EAC countries, including Tanzania, have implemented TFCB programs with technical assistance from organizations such as the United Nation Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). EAC countries have adopted an electronic cargo tracking system and invested in transport infrastructure (ports, roads, railways, airports) to improve their trade competitiveness. In Tanzania alone, the transportation and storage industries have grown 16.6 percent by 2017. Improving infrastructure becomes important as Tanzania’s rice production is expected to increase slightly by 2020, per USDA estimates. Furthermore, Tanzania has expanded its market access by exporting rice to its neighboring East African countries, making it a major supplier of rice throughout the region. Tanzania’s rice producers can provide for domestic and international markets. Tanzania’s response to trade liberalization has resulted in it being the fastest growing East African economy at 7.1 percent in 2017.

In sum, trade liberalization policies create structural incentives that shift supply and demand in favor of foreign producers to the detriment of local subsistence farmers. As the COVID-19 pandemic is showing, the cycle of food insecurity only worsens when imports are restricted, local production remains low, and food prices go up. However, designing trade liberalization policies and capacity-building programs that support local producers over the long-term may help address food insecurity in developing countries.

__________________________________________________________________

Sarita D. Jackson, Ph.D. is the President and CEO of the Global Research Institute of International Trade, a Californian think-tank and consulting firm. Dr. Jackson has previously worked on overseas projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Fulbright Scholar/Lecture Award. She is also a published author, TEDx speaker, and business school instructor. She conducts her work in English and Spanish. Dr. Jackson earned a Bachelor’s degree in journalism and Spanish at the University of Southern California and a Master’s and Doctorate in political science at Brown University. 

East asia's

Lessons to Learn from East Asia’s Response to COVID-19

The proximity of the likes of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Vietnam to China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak, meant initial forecasts of the virus’s impact were grim. Both public and economic health looked certain to be under serious threat. Yet in stark contrast to much of the Western world, these East Asian nations appear to have the situation under control.

Few to no new cases are being reported here from week to week, while figures continue to spike daily in Brazil, Russia, and elsewhere. But how have they done it, and what can the West learn from East Asia’s handling of the outbreak?

A fast and decisive response

The crucial element in East Asia’s early response – and one perhaps missing elsewhere – was speed. Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea all acted swiftly to ban or quarantine incoming visitors. Smart test and trace programs and widespread public mobilization have further contributed to success in limiting the advance of the disease. Taiwan in fact began monitoring the health of travelers on the very day China announced the discovery of the virus to the world.

Lessons learned from previous health crises

Hong Kong suffered the most deaths outside of mainland China During the SARS epidemic of 2002-2004, while Taiwan had the world’s highest mortality rate. Both nations in particular were driven by a desire to do better if and when another virus struck.

Despite a fumbled state response, Hong Kong’s residents began wearing masks almost universally and distributing sanitization supplies to areas in need. The Taiwanese government meanwhile was far better prepared than it had been almost two decades earlier, with public movement quickly curbed and hospital capacity under constant review.

Resilient economies

Investors monitoring global markets with online brokers such as Tickmill may find encouragement in East Asia’s economic response. Taiwan, for example, resisted a full lockdown, meaning that economic activity, while still stunted, has not suffered to the degree it has elsewhere. Residents have stayed at home more than they otherwise would but are buying online while continuing to work. In Hong Kong meanwhile, life is returning to normal, with many public and private spaces back welcoming visitors. Success in containing the disease should provide a more stable foundation for economic recovery.

Takeaways for the West

There are important lessons for the West to take away should another disease spread in the future.

Countries will need to strengthen the medical supply capacity closer to home while working with producers to find ways to plan ahead, respond quickly, and save lives. East Asia’s response has also demonstrated the potential of digital strategy and how, in the context of a pandemic, it can monitor and protect society en masse.

nebraskans

NEBRASKANS SUPPORT TRADE BUT TRUST IN MEDIA AND WASHINGTON IS LOW

A new survey of Nebraskans finds that citizens appreciate trade’s benefits, especially for farmers and ranchers, but want more reliable information about trade policy.

Anxious but confident: the more international trade the better

Nebraskans surveyed are anxious about the economy but confident with respect to the importance of trade to their state’s agricultural production complex.

Released last month by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), the new report, “U.S. Foreign Policy for the Middle Class: Perspectives from Nebraska,” assesses state views about how U.S. foreign policy interacts with the economic wellbeing of the middle class in the nation’s heartland. The research team interviewed over 130 Nebraskans in six communities across the state in the summer of 2019 (before the economy was further affected by the coronavirus pandemic) to gauge their perceptions.

Whether respondents hailed from urban Omaha or rural Scottsbluff, and whether they worked directly in agriculture or in health care, local government or education, those interviewed were remarkably consistent and clear on the subject of trade policy and the state’s agriculture sector: the more international trade, the better.

Focus Group Cities

The big picture is not the only picture in the Nebraska economy

Macro-level statistics obscure the importance of Nebraska’s agriculture sector. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing contributes more than twice as much as agriculture to Nebraska’s GDP (10.9 percent versus 4.9 percent, respectively). But within manufacturing, “food and kindred products” is the top category. The broader agricultural production complex includes processing but also transportation, warehousing, agriculture-related research, and other professional services such as IT, legal, insurance, and financial.

Thus, while Nebraska has a diversified economy and workforce, one in four jobs is directly or indirectly tied to the state’s agricultural production complex, according to UNL researchers. Some interviewees pointed to main street businesses like car dealerships as a barometer for agriculture, saying that farmers are more likely to purchase new cars or trucks when they have profitable years.

As the report notes, “Even if they do not hold one of those ag-related jobs, most Nebraskans likely benefit in some way from the revenues the sector generates. That may explain why so many of those interviewed, whether directly involved with agriculture or not, said they supported any trade policies that worked best for farmers, ranchers, and others associated with the agricultural production complex.”

Trade a most important foreign policy

Exports dominate the discourse on trade

The Nebraskans interviewed spoke about trade almost exclusively in terms of exports, perhaps not surprising for a state that consistently ranks highly in the production and export of many agricultural products from soybeans and corn to beef and beef products. Nebraska’s most important export markets are Canada and Mexico, U.S. free trade agreement partners.

The majority of those interviewed saw U.S. trade agreements as benefiting Nebraskan agriculture, in particular the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the U.S. trade deal with Japan (as a second best alternative to the Transpacific Partnership, from which the U.S. withdrew in 2017). While many supported the President’s tough stance against China, they also worried about the potential for future lost market share due to shifting supply chains brought on by the trade war. In the voice of one interviewee, over the long run, the United States needs to “focus [more] on developing markets…and less…on picking a fight with China.”

The seeming invisibility of imports

Imports were rarely mentioned by those interviewed, whether from a consumer or supply chain perspective. Aside from one manufacturer who said that increased steel tariffs had put cost pressure on his inputs, most discussion of tariffs revolved instead around retaliation on U.S. agriculture exports, not the impact of U.S. tariffs on imports. This is not surprising: exports are celebrated in news releases and headlines. Import data is portrayed in the negative light of trade imbalances. Imports of intermediate goods make up 60 percent of global trade by some estimates, but in the form of parts and components for the production of final goods, they lack visibility.

U.S. import tariffs have likely affected consumer prices to some degree. In research prepared for the Yeutter Institute by Edward Balistreri of Iowa State University, tariffs imposed in 2018 and 2019 as part of the U.S.-China trade war may have cost Nebraska’s households as much as $600 per year through a combination of lost export opportunities, increased productions costs, and increased consumer prices. A potential doubling of tariff costs on imported items theoretically risked households near the lower bounds of the middle-income range falling out of the middle-income bracket while those tariffs were in place. Despite being a pocketbook issue, the cost of imports was notably absent as a topic of discussion across interviews.

View on China engagement

There is more than one “heartland”

The Carnegie Endowment conducted similar interviews and focus groups in Ohio in 2018 and Colorado in 2019. There are important nuances among and within these three states. On trade policy, Nebraskans were far more aligned in their views than Ohioans.

Nebraskans tend to view agriculture as the backbone of the state’s economy, leading to more consistent opinions on the beneficial role of trade. Ohio has a much larger manufacturing workforce that has experienced heavy losses in recent years, with trade policy and globalization often taking the blame. This perception has led to deep divisions over trade policy among those interviewed in Ohio.

In comparing the three states, the report notes that such “place-based economic considerations appeared to drive attitudes on the intersection of U.S. foreign policy with the perceived economic interests of America’s middle class.”

“I don’t trust Washington”

Unfortunately, where participants in all three states did seem to agree was in their mistrust of institutions and their sources of information regarding foreign policy.

Project participants consistently said they did not trust the news media or official Washington to provide unbiased information about trade and foreign policy. As a result, many said they do not always feel they have enough knowledge to develop well-informed opinions. They also do not believe that decisions about foreign policy are made with middle America’s economic interests in mind.

One Nebraska participant illustrated a common sentiment in expressing, “I don’t think anybody knows what the truth is and I don’t …trust Washington to tell me what the truth is.” If participants wanted to learn more about trade and foreign policy, they often said they did not know where to find trustworthy sources of information.

Quote about trust

How to amplify middle-class voices?

At a time of intense debate over what the aims of U.S. trade policy should be, such depth of perspective from Americans across the country is important. Do we need new structures to gather it?

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative formally seeks public comment as part of its process to determine negotiating priorities and statutorily maintains 26 advisory committees to make sure U.S. negotiating objectives “reflect U.S. public and private sector interests.” The advisory system includes a committee designed for input from state and local level leaders. Yet these structures are neither visible nor accessible to most Americans.

Elected officials may of course offer input outside of these constructs. Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts gave an example on an episode of the Yeutter Institute’s Trade Matters podcast:

“When there was a rumor that the United States was going to pull out of the South Korean Trade Agreement, I picked up the phone on a Friday afternoon to call our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Lighthizer, to tell him how bad that would be for Nebraska,” Governor Ricketts said.

“He called me back on Sunday afternoon, so very responsive…he doesn’t always tell you what you want to hear, but certainly wanted to listen as I was talking about why South Korea was such an important trading partner.”

Place-based trade policies?

Governor Ricketts’ comments and the report findings reinforce a central conundrum of trade policy: it has disparate impacts on the economies of different U.S. states.

In their pursuit of the national interest, foreign policy professionals, including trade negotiators, understandably do not want to pick winners and losers or wade into domestic politics. But integrating more information about the economic experience of middle-class Americans into the trade policymaking process can help inform policy options that anticipate the losses — and local opportunities — from trade policy.

Meanwhile, what about those who said they wanted to learn more about trade and foreign policy, but did not know where to find information they could trust? They also reported that locally trusted leaders can play a key role in how people think about policies. Perhaps such leaders are a starting point for deeper conversations about trade.

Related in the series by The Carnegie Endowment on U.S. Foreign Policy for the Middle Class:

-Perspectives from Colorado

-Perspectives from Ohio

___________________________________________________________

Jill O'Donnell

Jill O’Donnell is a professor of practice and the director of the Clayton Yeutter Institute of International Trade and Finance at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She is the host of the institute’s Trade Matters podcast. She served on the research team for the report discussed in this article, along with colleagues from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Bureau of Business Research and the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center, in partnership with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.
delivery

Is your Ecommerce Caught Between Delivery Delays and Voided Service Guarantees? Strategies to Survive this Situation.

The pandemic has disrupted ecommerce businesses in unique ways. While a few ecommerce stores went bust, others doubled their revenue overnight. Regardless the parcel volumes continue to soar. The parcel volumes are so high that even major shipping carriers like FedEx and UPS are overwhelmed. For example, FedEx alone saw a 35%-40% increase in B2C deliveries. An unprecedented rise in shipments has forced both the carriers to resort to undertaking stringent actions.

Carriers Suspend Service Guarantees

FedEx and UPS have suspended money-back guarantee for ground and priority services. Let’s take a minute to understand what this means for merchants. An escalation in order volumes directly impacts the carrier’s on-time delivery performance. It is almost a given that merchants will experience a minimum of 20% increase in delays. An explosion in sales, impatient customers, and shoddy delivery experience. Add to it, COVID uncertainty and unaccountability resulting from voided service guarantees. Sounds like a disaster in the making?

When delays are imminent

With the growing volume of residential deliveries clogging their network, carriers may redirect traffic to relieve congestion. Suspension of guarantees also means that FedEx or UPS can switch your priority shipments to lower-cost ground mode without notice. Expect more delays for overnight and priority shipments. While you pay for a premium service there is no way you can hold carriers accountable.

Watch out for COVID-19 Surcharges

In order to mitigate the strain on their delivery network, UPS followed by FedEx has come up with peak volume surcharges. A $30 surcharge as additional handling charges and $0.40 for services like FedEx SmartPost or UPS surepost. But the surcharge that retailers must be most concerned about is the residential area surcharge. A surcharge of $0.30 will be levied on all orders that are to be delivered to residences.

Strategies to survive

The disastrous combination of delivery delays and rising shipping costs can ruin your sales revenue. It is crucial to take steps to mitigate the impact of COVID on your shipping costs as well as customer experience.

Here are a few strategies to follow:

1. Re-negotiate your shipping contract: UPS or FedEx can’t spring a surprise charge. Especially during these trying times. Work through your shipping profile to figure out the impact of these charges on your costs. Negotiate with your FedEx or UPS rep and draw up a special contract for the COVID situation.

2. Consider charging for order delivery: Free and fast delivery has been your brand’s USP. However, if including a shipping fee helps your business stay afloat, don’t shy away. Don’t let the additional surcharge eat into your profit margin.

3. Delays should not deter you: Factor in for delays while revisiting the estimated date of shipments on your shipping page.  Communicate well in advance to your customer support team. Mention the changes to delivery times due to COVID On your home page.

4. Over-communicate with your customers: Let your customers know at all times where their package is. Stay on top of your orders at all times. Act quickly in case of a delivery exception.

5. Audit your invoices: Businesses are slashing all the excess spending. As for ecommerce, you should start by auditing your shipping invoice. It is more critical than ever to examine each and every line item on your invoice. This can help you save 10%-12% of your shipping costs.

The peak volume surcharges and service guarantee suspension are supposedly temporary. When things go back to normal, FedEx and UPS are likely to reinstate these service guarantees. However, with no clear timeline in businesses must prepare to navigate the status-quo as long as it lasts.

________________________________________________________________

Simon Perkins is a Shipping Cost Management expert at AuditShipment.com, a real-time parcel monitoring and AI-powered audit service that provides businesses with deep shipping intelligence and actionable cost recovery insights.