The world is flat?...
Reading the book "The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman (NYT journalist) on globalization, I can't help but wonder what this author and people in general mean by that. This is an excellent, very well written, extremely informed point of view on the effects of technology and innovation on the XXI century world. Besides, I'm sure Friedman will be launching his campaign for president soon (he even has his own philosophical approach to government called "compassionate flatism" ;-)

Interesting enough, Friedman's analysis of technology effects on trade and commerce is full of examples on China, India, Russia and Europe, but when it comes to Latin America and Africa there are few mentions. Truth is that one whole chapter is dedicated to the "underdeveloped world" (which I'm reading now), but it focus on how countries belonging to this category should learn the lessons of globalization and become more competitive. In other words, how to become flat and be a part of what is happening in other regions.

My question is: How can we talk about globalization ignoring what is going on in the "underdeveloped" world? What I meant by "ignoring" is that I believe one thing is to preach to Guatemala (or Angola, Bolivia, Tunisia) what they have to do with their labor laws in order to become more competitive, and another very different is to get to understand what is happening in this country (or any other) and "include" that learning as part of your analysis of what globalization means. There's a word that I think appropiate and that is INCLUSIVENESS. It takes time and energy to understand what does not so easily fits into our point of view, but I believe there will be no comprehensive understanding and therefore global solutions, if we don't pay enough attention to what is different. We cannot talk about globalization and ignore what is happening in the half of the world that doesn't fit into our standards.

Putting it in marketing terms, we can expect that our potential audiences get interested in our very smart strategies and learn how to communicate with us, or we can do better and learn how to communicate with them based on their needs and their reality...

Or, what do you think?...

What can we learn from the recent demonstrations on the immigration policy reforms? It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue, one thing that is important is the learnings that we can derive from them.

You often hear that Latinos are all about family. Everywhere we go we take Granma, Uncle Jose, the neighbor and even the dog, the cat and the parrot (obviously this is an exageration that I'm allow to make because I'm Latino). But, what does that mean? For marketing purposes, it means that Latinos have a group perspective, a community perspective, where the "we" is more important than the "I". It is fascinating to me that some indigenous languages in Latin America don't have a word for "I", since the individual is not important. The only thing that matters is the community.

When the Latino community feels a threat it comes together in a way that we don't usually see. That happened years ago in California with Proposition 187, and it is happening again with the recent immigration reforms.

In my point of view, this is one of the cultural characteristics that make Latinos unique and one of the reasons why organizations need to understand this community before creating communication strategies to attract them. It is all about the community. ..

Not long ago, as I was enjoying a local artist exhibition at SFMOMA a young man standing in front of a collage made a call on his cell phone. First thing I thought was "how rude is this guy and how does he dear to imposse his conversation on us". I remembered reading recently several articles and blogs about the lack of social manners and how people are becoming so self-absorbed, with the aid of new technology, that it doesn't matter anymore that we use our devices despite the place where we are. And then I started overhearing, or to be totally honest, paying close attention to his conversation. The conversation went more or less like this (the part that I was able to listen):

-Hey man, is this John ?(don't remember the exact name)
-Hey, I'm here at SFMOMA looking at your painting
-Yeah, it is really cool!
-Yeah, the whole exhibit is awesome
- Congratulations man!
- Yeah, anytime man

After this brief conversation, he hung up and kept looking at the exhibition. Several of us who were there started laughing, smiling and/or whispering comments to our friends. I was amazed!

The fact that we have communication possibilities that we wouldn't dream of not long ago doesn't mean that we are fully aware of the implications in our everyday lifes. For a person to be able to interact in real time with the artist whose painting is hanging in a museum brings a whole different perspective to what a museum is about, and therefore to the communication and marketing strategies for museums.

The use of new technologies for museum marketing is taking us closer to what we've known all this time as true: word of mouth is the most effective communication tool and addressing directly to the audience that we are trying to reach out would pay off in the short and long run. Creating real, grass roots, community relations is one of the most effective ways to let people know about what our organzations are about. When we use some of the new technologies available in the market, like blogs or podcasts, in a way that the person feels that we are talking directly to her/him, we are creating a call for participation, a sense of involvement and ownership. It is not enough anymore to address our audiences like they are all alike, monolitical and standard. Museum-goers, like every other consumer, are more and more getting used to be addressed in a way that is particular, individualized and respondent to their particular needs. What could be more personal that being able to talk directly with the artists in an exhibition?

Internet, what do you think?