In the interesting US/China trade example, the line weight gives an immediate indication to the size of the number, while color shows inports versus exports with Red being exports and green imports.

Given that, we see immediately some key facts. First, the US imports far more than it exports. In fact, the trade deficit is a whopping 810 billion USD. Inversely, China exports more than it imports to a tune of 31 billion USD difference.

We also see that Canada and China are almost neck and neck as importers to the US, with Canada at 335.6 billion USD and China at 337.8 billion USD, a mere 2.2 billion USD difference.

Looking at exports however, we see that Canada is a far more strategic trading partner for the US in terms of exports. In fact, the US exports more to Mexico at 151 billion USD, which is no surprise after NAFTA, than it does to China at 71 billion USD. What’s interesting is that the EU seems to be better at negotiating trading relations with China to the tune of an additional 60.7 billion USD a year worth of EU imports! The trade gap is also lower, at 168 billion USD versus the US’s 267.4 billion.

Diving deeper into the chart, Mint.com calls out the top 5 trade areas, little of which will come as a suprise to anybody who looks at any “Made in” labels in the US. So naturally, we have Apparel and Footwear, Computers and Parts, Toys and Bicycles, Televisions and Furniture being the top 5 import areas to the US, while the US is shipping soybeans, semiconductors, aircraft, plastics and copper to China.

Bearing that in mind, take a look at this next data visualisation from Armin Reller of the University of Augsburg, and Tom Graedel at Yale University.

Much of the exotic raw materials used to make consumer electronics, such as TV’s and Phones, are expected to last for only another 20 or so years if demand in emerging markets continues to grow as fast as it is now.

So by 2029, we will need to find new materials to make our TVs with, which, given the fast development pace of elctronics, seems completly doable. Although a good percentage of our raw materials can be recycled, such as copper and silver (we can always melt down our jewerly to get more), while others such as uraninium is not. Which means sometime between 19  to 59 years, we need new sources of energy.

What’s interesting about the two charts is that growth in trade, which the US constantly pushes like used car salesmen, will in fact cause an increasing strain on resources. In turn, fewer resources means that the cost of goods reliant on those resources go up and investment in companies reliant on them starts to look worse and worse.

And this is the inherent problem with the US (and British) economic model. If you are dependent on an ever increasing amount of global production to justify an ever increasing demand for profit, at some point you will hit the limit of your resourcing.  We see this fastest in services based industries such as advertising where a company’s ability to deliver is linked directly to the number of people they have employed. Less people means less money.

The global answer to this limitation problem is to simply do more with less. Eventually however, the cost of stretching the usage of limited supplies available to the last possible moment will exceed the cost of switching to new solutions and technologies. This is what we are starting to see in the energy industry, where the cost of exploration, drilling, refining, shipping and distributing oil is growing to the point where alternative energy sources such as hydrogen, with all of its challenges, will actually be cheaper to develop than to maintain the status quo.

The future therefore, lies either in those companies that can innovate themselves out of the resource pit, or in the new companies that have found better ways to solve our global needs. Either way, growth in innovation is critical to ensure business continues in the future. Whether it’s technological innovation designed to maintain our current economic models, or economic and business innovation to discover alternative models for measuring and running future business.

First off is this nice one on Starbucks and McDonald’s.

Starbucks and McDonald's global domination

Some interesting highlights to note. The total sales of McDonald’s in 2003 was a hairs breadth from being double the GOP of Afghanistan and exceeded all of its major global competitors by a good $8 billion!

The countries you are most likely to find a Starbucks and McDonald’s don’t seem to differ all that much: USA, Canada, UK and Japan are the biggest three for both brands. The size of the UK bubble for McDonald’s is particularly shocking! What would be an interesting layer on this one are the countries with the most problems with obesity, of which both the UK and the US top the charts.

The most surprising figure though is the number of countries used to make up a cup of Startbucks coffee. The answer it 19! Naturally, the beans are sourced from the major coffee growing countries in Latin America, Africa and Indonesia. While paper is sourced from the major paper producers, Canada and Scandinavia. The sugar comes from Brazil and Australia, which is an eye-opener to me as I didn’t even know they grow sugar there.

Next up, the US/China global trade!

In the last decade, the world as we know it underwent a fundamental change. A change so profound that it represented an extinction-level event for businesses of all types. Science defines an extinction-level event (or ELE to film buffs) as a period in time when a large number of species die out. The most famous ELE event, the extinction of the dinosaurs, is contributed to an asteroid impact.

The asteroid that collided with the business world on August 6, 1991 was the Internet, or more precisely, the World Wide Web. And its impact is still being felt globally. The resulting impact of the Internet is suffocating any businesses incapable of making evolutionary changes, while literally wiping out some businesses altogether. Any business that hasn’t already adapted to the new way the world works is already under threat. This includes those working in the middle, those who’s business models rely on corporate secrecy and those who still cling to the notion of branded air.

If you work in the middle, the air probably is already starting to feel a bit thin. This is especially true in the entertainment industry. As the Internet enables content producers and creators, to publish, market and distribute their products directly to consumers, then what role is there for distributors, marketers and packagers? In fact, do we really need any middlemen in the entertainment business? Consumers are quite happy with the notion of “free.” And if pressed, would much rather pay the artists directly.  

Business who rely on corporate secrecy to maintain their existence are finding that secrets have a way of being exposed. With the likes of sites such as Wikileaks.org, Corporate Watch (corpwatch.org) , Source Watch (sourcewatch.org) and Whatdotheyknow.com, corporate secrecy is approaching its own end of days. Whistleblowers are being praised as the our new heroes and leaking sensitive documents is quickly becoming a fad in its own right. For after decades of being fired, laid-off, made redundant and generally used as disposable assets, consumers are today loyal unto themselves, not to corporations and are quite happy to expose the corporate dirty laundry.

Even the seemingly harmless brands are becoming increasingly under the microscope of global consumer eye. Fast moving consumer goods, fashion brands, banks and service brands of all kinds are seeing the flip-side of globalization, global awareness and knowledge. Shady business practices in far-flung corners of the planet are being dished up in the headlines of Western papers and books for all to see as remote bloggers track the daily lives of near-slave labourers in Southeast Asian countries. In the light of global awareness, creating brand meanings out of thin air is seen for what it really is, air. 

So unless you have been living on another planet while the ELE happened, then you probably already know all of this. You probably have read the recommended books that tell you how exactly your business must change. Or listened to a dozen overpriced consultants telling you what you already felt in your gut. The air is not getting thin. It is thin! The oxygen is nearly gone. Your consumers are fleeing in droves or fighting back. 

There is no real secret here. Consumers do what consumers have always done. They try to get what they want. It’s up to marketers to respond to the consumer, not vice versa. It’s time to add value to the equation to the extent that consumers not only want to engage with you, but want to help you as well.

This blog will show you practical strategies to make your business relevant again to a growing consumer base that, at present, couldn’t really be bothered with you. A word of caution however. It doesn’t mean that you can keep doing business as usual. You will need to redefine your role in the entertainment equation. You will need to find a way to become relevant and useful to an audience that is godlike in their dissemination of media and entertainment.