The Bruce Report

Nothing about Yves Gagnon telegraphs the ambitions of an environmental reformer. Not the 65-foot, paved driveway that leads to his two-car garage. Not the multi-thousand-square-foot home he shares with his wife, Mylene, and 12-year-old daughter, Gabrielle. Not the expanse of perfectly manicured lawn or the conspicuous absence of windmills, solar panels, compost heaps and any of the other accoutrements you typically associate with a dedicated, lifelong friend of the earth. . .

(For more of this feature by multiple-award-winning journalist Alec Bruce, go to Atlantic Business Magazine online, the best and winningest business magazine in Atlantic Canada).

We embrace the words as the faithful do their relics: with devotion, hope and a flawed understanding of their meaning. Indeed, “The Leadership Principle” appears everywhere in the capitalist code of conduct, ready to bestow boons if only we believe in their mystical power to change our uncompetitive ways. Those who we imagine have been touched by such magic are our heroes. . .

(For more of this commentary by multiple-award-winning journalist Alec Bruce, go to Atlantic Business Magazine online, the best and winningest business magazine in Atlantic Canada).

Was it just the other day when to be an average white male of a certain age was to engender scorn and mistrust in the world’s emerging economies? After all, we of the masculine persuasion and pasty hue have been responsible for most of the world’s enduring miseries: colonialism, imperialism, war, environmental degradation.

Well, you can forget all that. The “iceman” is back, and with a vengeance if we are to believe one Mitch Moxley, a Canadian journalist who chronicles his recent adventures in the Middle Kingdom for the July issue of The Atlantic. “Not long ago, I was offered work as a quality-control expert with an American company in China I’d never heard of,” he writes. “No experience necessary – which was good, because I had none. The only requirements were a fair complexion and a suit.”

In hilarious detail, Moxley goes on to describe his adventures as a Caucasian for hire: “I became a fake businessman in China, an often lucrative gig for underworked expatriates here. I’d be paid $1,000 for a week, put up in a fancy hotel, and wined and dined in Dongying, an industrial city in Chandong province.

“One friend, an American who works in film, was paid to represent a Canadian company and give a speech espousing a low-carbon future. Another was flown to Shanghai to act a seasonal-gifts buyer. Recruiting fake businessmen is one way to create the image – particularly, the image of connection – that Chinese companies crave. My Chinese-language tutor, at first aghast about how much we were getting paid, put it this way: ‘Having foreigners in nice suits gives the company face.’”

To be precise, a white face.

Indeed, there is something exquisitely ironic and weirdly poignant about the whole phenomenon. Having scooped up enough bonds and treasury bills to keep the once-mighty U.S. economy on life support, the Chinese now find skin colour the last great reservoir of value in the western juggernaut. It’s no longer our entrepreneurial attitude they’re after; it’s our congenital “white-itude”. Though our economies continue to falter, our vanilla and strawberry visages continue to inspire, though God knows why.

My exhaustive research on the subject of being alabaster definitively shows we’re disadvantaged in many important respects, compared with our darker brethren. We’re prone to burn in full sun (some of us even crisp up in a light fog). And we look simply awful in purple. Moreover, “whiteness” traditionally carries with it a certain amount of decidedly unhelpful cultural baggage, notably a reticence to empathize with those parts of the world where we don’t comprise a majority of the population.

Still, maybe this is changing. Certainly, many of Moxley’s online readers think so.

“I need a gig like that,” mjvota wrote. “Will someone pay it forward?”

Todd Jolley agreed: “How do I get a gig like that?”

Affirmed Nikiu, “Well, I’m jobless, and I’m in for a trip to China.”

Added Nevey, “I’m wondering if they would take women as well, geez. I’d volunteer in a heartbeat only if it meant I didn’t have to sleep with anyone.”

And here’s some advice from dadanada: “How to get acting jobs in China. . .Be attractive. . .For men: pack a suit & tie. . .Live in Beijing, cheap apt. in Haidian district is best. . .Hang out at Beijing Language & Culture University. That’s where I was ‘discovered’. . .I was working 3-5 days a month, making $100/day doing advertisements and the occasional scam gig.”

Speaking for all white men with decent suits, I might find this emerging practice tantamount to corporate prostitution. I might bitterly complain about being judged not for the content of my character and quality of my intellect, but only for my pleasing demeanour and crisp wardrobe. I might decry the arm candy into which mainstream China has made me.

I might, but you’ll have to excuse me now.

I’m late for my facial.

You couldn’t pay me enough to watch even five minutes of “Live with Regis and Kelly”. If I want artlessly twee banter with my morning cup of coffee, I’ll stick with Canada AM. At least it provides a dollop of real news amidst all the faux gravitas.

But there’s no avoiding the fact that millions of T-V viewers in this country and across the United States would thoroughly disagree with me. The dynamic duo even boasts a Facebook fan club for, and I quote, “anyone who likes to spend their weekday mornings watching a great talk-show with two great hosts, and for those of us who hope to one day get that magic phone call and have a chance to win a trip and get to say hello to Kelly, Gelman, Art Moore, and the one and only ‘Big Daddy’ Regis Philbin.”

Certainly, Prince Edward Island tourism officials understand the show’s popular reach and appeal. That’s why they’re paying $800,000 to bring the cheerful pair and entourage to Charlottetown this summer for four days of live broadcasts, a move which Premier Robert Ghiz describes as “a strategic initiative to build the province’s brand, which encompasses tourism, food and culture.”

Others, naturally, are calling it a complete waste of tax dollars. Conservative tourism critic Jim Bagnall says the outlay will not attract enough visitors to justify the cost. And a small but vocal group of newspaper letter-writers claim the scheme diverts money and attention away from the province’s systemic woes in agriculture, the fishery and manufacturing.

While I sympathize, in this case Premier Ghiz is more right than wrong. Tourism marketing is an enormously tricky business. And big, singular events almost always provide plenty of bang for the buck. Just ask Ian Fowler, General Manager of Recreation, Parks, Culture and Tourism for the City of Moncton, who has overseen wildly successful concerts and athletic contests in recent times. This year, the World Junior Track and Field Championships and a regulation CFL game promise to re-brand the Hub City as national sports centre.

All of which underscores a shift in strategies – one which reflects the changing dynamics of the industry, itself, in the Atlantic Provinces. According to Statistics Canada, tourism generates about $5 billion in export revenues and 100,000 jobs a year on the East Coast. In fact, it accounts for more GDP in this region (5.3 per cent) than it does at the national level (2.5 per cent).

Still, the industry has winnowed in recent years. Between 1996 and 2002, visitor traffic to Atlantic Canada increased by 38 per cent and revenues grew by 64 per cent. Since then, however, arrivals have dropped by 12 per cent and revenues have grown by only one per cent. Meanwhile, the region’s share of overnight trips to Canadian destinations also declined.

Ask ten tourism experts the reason for the trend, and you’ll get ten different answers. Some say the continued fall-out from 9-11, and the stringent cross-border security requirements, are to blame. Others point to the high Canadian dollar and price of gasoline. Still others think that all jurisdictions in Canada – not just ours – aren’t providing enough unique “travelling experiences” to haul ‘em in like we used to.

But it’s more likely we’re simple victims of an all-too-familiar fact of life in the 21^st     Century. As a recent study by management consulting firm Grant Thornton concludes: “Tourism has become a global marketplace and globalization has meant a dramatic increase in the number of destinations available to vacationers. According to the World Tourism Organization, world tourism grew by six per cent in 2007. This was preceded by 5.3 per cent growth in 2006 and 5.5 per cent growth in 2005.”

In other words, P.E.I. is no longer competing for bums-in-beds with just its regional neighbours. It’s competing with Singapore, India, Mexico, Cuba and northern Europe as never before. Says Grant Thornton: “The [province] needs to be more committed and an aggressive participant in this global market.”

If Ghiz and his strategists think “Live with Regis and Kelly” will fit this bill, then more power to them.

Just don’t ask me to watch.

Some Moncton drivers think they’re completely justified parking their cars on another’s private property. Meanwhile, several downtown landowners think they have an absolute right to immobilize trespassers’ vehicles with the now infamous “boot”.  At least these camps share one point in common: They’re both wrong.

            It’s been ages since the Hub City managed to manufacture such a ludicrous controversy. And, as with all civic dust-ups when brains succumb to passion, the timing is impeccable: Lest we forget, tourist season is just around the corner, and the imbroglio can’t help but imply that Moncton is not the people-friendly destination it’s cracked up to be just in time for the World Junior Track and Field Championships.

            Certainly, the mainstream media and the blogosphere are having a field day covering the story. And why not? It’s a headline writer’s dream: “Give the boot to the boot”, “These boots were made for locking”, “Moncton’s new rush-hour gridlock.” It surely helps when both the mayor and the local Member of Parliament weigh in on the subject.

            Said George LeBlanc last week: “It’s not like you’re parking in someone’s driveway. . .There’s an imbalance of power and authority here and questions of fairness.”

            Added Brian Murphy: “It’s an unseemly way of doing business. Nobody should be inconvenienced by a half-hour. And the idea that you park there and the engine is still warm and they are towing or booting you is crazy.”

            Indeed, it is. But no less so than assuming a private lot is yours for the invading simply because it’s not full. In this sense, it’s exactly like parking in someone’s driveway. Ask any number of homeowners who live along the perimeters of Victoria Park during the August craft market for their opinions about their fellow citizens’ sense of vehicular entitlement.

            Frankly, though, like many in this community, I have zero patience with draconian measures to enforce property rights at the expense of reason and compromise. And a lightly regulated, dubiously licensed service that wheel-boots my car and then demands I pay an inexplicable penalty of 85 bucks before I can drive off does worse than trespass; it extorts my compliance, like some inner-city mugger.

            Still, there is a way out of this frustrating morass as long as cooler heads prevail.

            Where feasible, private landowners in the downtown area should fence and gate their lots. Where this proves impractical, they should post big, legible signs in both English and French clearly indicating that unauthorized parking will result in warnings, tickets, and, as a last resort, towing or booting. They should record the plate numbers of repeat offenders, and seek remedies and penalties appropriate to the so-called crime.

Meanwhile, public authorities should heavily regulate the practice of booting by, among other things, drafting and enforcing a code of conduct and producing a comprehensive community information program. They should require that private parking lot “booters” obtain all the certifications and licenses applicable to public parking lot attendants, and adhere to a strict standard of best practices when dealing with offenders. These include: Appreciating the circumstances of an individual driver’s infraction; courtesy; efficiency; and speed. Moreover, they should establish a legitimate complaint and redress mechanism for drivers who feel they have been treated unfairly (or robbed at pen-point).

If all this sounds nauseatingly complicated, bear in mind that parking restrictions in every city of Canada are replete with “nanny-state” conventions. You can’t roll up outside somebody’s house in downtown Toronto without inviting an unwanted tow courtesy of the city’s public works department. Just try negotiating with those characters.

Of course, the best solution for Moncton’s periodic woes is always the simplest: Drivers, don’t park where you’re not wanted; landowners, try to remember you’re part of a community and that wheel-booting is a wholly foreign assault against the well-being of an otherwise peaceful and cheerful city.

Better yet, ride a bike to work.

You’ll feel better, and in so many ways.

How morbidly appropriate that the vanguard of the new despotism does not march against hapless villagers in some Third World country, but sits malignly on the desks of countless rich westerners who remain either ambivalent or oblivious to its daily assaults on their rights and freedoms.

            Democracy’s arch-villain in the age of the Internet is not a tin-pot dictator with pillaging and killing on his mind. It’s a social-networking tool whose masters seem to think their customer’s personal information is a fungible, publicly available commodity.

            And so it was we witnessed, earlier this week, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddard lowering the boom (or was it a fly-swatter?) on that ubiquitous omnicorp Google for introducing a new Web 2.0 platform that plumbs user accounts for any juicy factoid or predilection which might enhance the search engine’s appeal to online advertisers.

            According to a National Post story: “Of particular concern was a feature that would comb through a Gmail inbox and identify people the user emailed the most, automatically adding those people as followers without the user’s consent. One blogger lashed out at Google for adding an abusive former boyfriend as a follower and displaying private information to him.”

            Stoddard was, reportedly, “very disappointed. . .We have seen a storm of protest and outrage over alleged privacy violations and my Office also has questions about how Google has met the requirements of privacy law in Canada.”

            For its part, the corporate behemoth has apologized, tearing up in decidedly crocodilian fashion. Privacy laws? How quaint? What’s that, exactly?

            This is not the first time a social-networking purveyor has run afoul of Canadian legislation. Last year, Facebook endured similar opprobrium for virtually identical sins. It, too, promised to clean up its act. But, in fact, why should it? Why should any of the Web 2.0 players – which remain among the least-regulated, least-transparent businesses in the world – change their ways?

The hype surrounding social media is nearly deafening. According to some reports, 73 per cent of Americans and 64 per cent of Europeans are online. In fact, Vancouver-based research firm Ipsos Reid estimates that that Canadians spend 5.4 hours a week accessing social networking sites. Specifically, it says, 37 per cent of Internet-enabled adults in this country regularly visit online communities, while 29 per cent maintain profiles. Nearly 63 per cent of the 18-34 demographic are visitors, and 55 per cent are active “profilers”. Meanwhile, 29 per cent between the ages of 35 and 54 are lurkers, while 21 per cent chat happily in their virtual spaces. Even older folks are getting with the program: In the 55 and over demographic, nine per cent are visitors while the same fraction maintain profiles.

The leading “thinkers” on the growth, character and economic impact of the social media include Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff of U.S.-based Forrester Research Inc. In one of their recent books, the contend: “By 2007, 12 years into the Web era, online advertising had reached $14.6 billion (USD) in the United States alone and approached $10 billion (USD) in Europe. Advertisers know that traffic indicates that consumers spend their time and attention online and act to translate that attention into advertising power. While advertising is not the only way to make money online, it’s growing so rapidly that any venture that creates significant traffic can count on revenues.”

            Under the circumstances what, precisely, can governments do? Issue complaints? Levy fines? Black out such services altogether? None of which seems either productive or feasible when so many of us (including Yours Truly) are prepared spend a good chunk of our lives in the free-wheeling, online frontier of chat rooms and groups.

            Then again, if we are, maybe we get what we deserve. Social networking has become a surrogate for real dialogue. And like any surrogate relationship, there’s a price to pay for inserting a broker into our conversations. This is the emerging autocracy, cultivated and fertilized by our rabid consumerism.

            In the end, real freedom is for telephone-talkers, letter-writers, and dinner-party-chatterers.

            It’s not for “facebookers”.

Threatening to deprive a man of his livelihood because he exploits his employees, steals from his shareholders or pollutes his community is fair, ethical play in a society that cherishes the value of each of its members.

            But confectioner David Ganong is guilty of none of these crimes. He treats his employees well. He embraces good, corporate governance. He is one of New Brunswick’s “greenest” entrepreneurs.

            Unfortunately, he is also the former chairman of an advisory panel on the NB Power/Hydro-Quebec tentative accord, which concluded the other day with this rather banal statement: “[We] have reached unanimous agreement that if the proposal is implemented, it would be good for New Brunswick.”

            Lamentably, this was enough for many people in the province to call for a boycott of Ganong’s candy and chocolates, as the company’s Facebook Fan Page flooded with angry rebukes and the kind of invective normally slung against fraudsters.

            “Ganong products will never again be bought by anyone in this family,” fumed one critic. “Consider yourself boycotted,” thundered another. “Starting today, whatever candy comes to this house will be branded other than Ganong,” bullied a third.

            And there were many more just like these and oftentimes worse: hysterical, outraged, wounded, snarling, braying screeds that, in some jurisdictions, might qualify as slanderous speech.

            Frankly, I get this kind of stuff all the time. It’s an occupational hazard. Besides, at least one of my professional responsibilities is to inspire strong feelings and provoke debate in these and the pages of other publications. Having executed my job, I’m not required to respond.

            Ganong, however, doesn’t enjoy this particular luxury. He makes sweets for a living, and customer relations are crucial to his progress. And so we witness his careful rejoinder in last Wednesday’s Saint John Telegraph-Journal: “After putting both my reputation and my time and effort into this on a volunteer basis. . .because my opinion is different than what somebody else’s may be, informed or uninformed, it is disappointing that they would try punish my company and my employees.”

            Indeed it is, and the ironies in the circumstance are almost too numerous to catalogue. From the beginning of the NB Power saga, opponents of the deal have complained about the lack of transparency and consultation undertaken by the province. But when someone who is asked for their opinion reaches an unpopular conclusion, he or she is immediately and fiercely castigated.

            It’s now frustratingly evident (if it wasn’t before) that some ardent critics in this province are less interested in hearing a fellow citizen’s divergent views than they are in hearing their own parroted, over and over again, by like-minded constituents. Heaven forbid they might learn something.

            But what’s especially chilling about this sort of overreaction is the pall it casts over the principle of democratic participation. If I thought, even for a second, that something I honestly believed could be used to curtail my economic opportunities, or those of my family, friends and employees, how willing do you think I’d be to sit on any public panel for any reason?

            How willing do you think I’d be to declare, as Ganong did about the NB Power agreement, “The proposed deal would contribute real and positive value to New Brunswick over the business-as-usual scenario”?

            It is entirely possible, of course, that he’s wrong. Maybe he and his colleagues should have consulted more people who were disinclined to endorse the deal, as Opposition Leader David Alward asserts.

            Is this sufficient reason to threaten Ganong’s livelihood?

Those who adopt such extreme measures to force compliance with their version of reality fail to realize that they undermine the conventions which provide them with their own liberty to express themselves.

The issue is not whether Ganong’s business will survive the torrent (it will). The issue is whether we, in an uncivil society, will survive the effects of our own intemperance.

I’m not exactly sure how it happened, but at some point over the past few weeks, my office desk sprouted two, brand-new laptops.

Where once there was one, now there are three, incessantly blinking screens all urgently, often simultaneously, demanding attention to clients through pass-word protected, remote servers (whatever those are).

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not afraid of hard labour. In fact, I thrive in the controlled chaos of 80-hour work weeks. Given the economically wretched era from which we’re just emerging, I’d be a precious little princling to feel otherwise.

It’s just that over the past few months of relative, if largely unwelcome, indolence, I had grown accustomed to a simpler lifestyle. Sleeping in till 8 wasn’t so bad. Neither was knocking off at 5. There were gardens to attend, bikes to fix, insulation to install, Facebook friends to make. Hell, I even considered a new career as an urban farmer as long as it didn’t interfere with cocktail hour.

Now, I find myself up at the crack of dawn, pouring over technical manuals on web-site design. I’m becoming a pupil of “content management systems” and the latest advances in “Web 2.0” technology. I’m rediscovering the charms of “Gant-chart” planning and magazine production “work-backs”.

In short, I’m pumped. . .and a tad bewildered. How fast things change in a world that, until recently, seemed to be circling the economic drain.

Of course, not everyone shares my renewed enthusiasm for earned (even unexpected) opportunity. A study just released in Canada suggests that the highest-paid, hardest-working, most successful professionals are among the least-content members of the American workforce. They worry more, complain more and risk more injury to their health and family relationships than their less financially comfortable counterparts.

It seems counter-intuitive, but the report’s author, University of Toronto sociologist Scott Schieman, says in a Globe and Mail article, “It’s the Mad Men idea. When you get more, there are consequences. Most people would say that [job authority, skill level, decision-making latitude and personal earnings] should actually lower the risk for work-family conflict. But we’re actually finding the opposite.”

Harold Eisenberg, a Toronto psychologist adds, “To achieve that level in the hierarchy requires a lot of self-sacrifice. But once they are there, it is sometimes a psychological coping mechanism to keep that engaged. Not because they have to prove anything, but because of their anxiety. . .A warning sign can be a spouse saying they’ve had it.”

Fortunately, that’s not my particular problem. My wife and I have owned and operated our little business for years. And the only time we argue about such matters is when we recognize than one or both of us are not spending our days and nights productively – recessions, notwithstanding.

All of which may say something about the nature of entrepreneurship – at least, the mom and pop variety. More likely, though, it says something about the nature of society during a time of dwindling expectations.

Some of us take nothing for granted. Some of us embrace every chance to turn a corner, learn a skill, and grab all the little brass rings we can, knowing that they are as rare and as valuable as polished platinum.

The lazy, hazy summer past is less a season than a state of mind. Growing accustomed to what was is a recipe for personal disaster – whether that’s forced idleness or intemperance or wistful acceptance.

As for me and my manual, the screens are blinking, the email is thundering through, and the phone is ringing off the hook. I don’t know exactly how it happened. I don’t know that I care much.

For the first time in several new moons, work beckons. And, like legions of other Canadians emerging from their recession-induced slumber, I’m answering the call.

Jonathan Dean – leader of the Atlantica Party, a former debating group that’s been gaining momentum and attention since its inception in Halifax in 2006 – unabashedly supports merging the four Atlantic Provinces into a single political entity. The notion dovetails nicely with his low-cost, free-trade, small-government economic principles, about which he spoke recently with Atlantic Business magazine’s Contributing Editor, Alec Bruce

Atlantic Business Magazine: You and your party are on the record supporting Atlantic political union. This is a long-simmering debate. . .

Jonathan Dean:  Naturally, it’ll be a nettlesome prospect trying to get it. . .

ABM: Absolutely, but I’m interested in the genesis of your position.

JD: Well, I’ve always been politically interested. I got involved with a small group of people. We just started reading books, making comments, chatting about the news and so on. And then I said to them: Let’s start actually doing something. There were three routes we could have taken. One was to form an advocacy group. The second was to join a mainstream party. And the third was to start our own party. And we chose to do the latter. We realized that it’s not sufficient just to have greater freedom of information in our government. This is a worthy goal, and a good thing. But we need more and better ways to get new and fresh ideas into political discourse. That’s why we decided to launch. It was probably the more fun route to take, because we had nothing to lose. None of us clearly had any background in politics. And quite frankly, none of is really interested in being a politician, but we are willing to take that on. 

ABM: That’s certainly a novel approach: a political party whose members have absolutely no political ambitions! Or, at least, so you say.

JD: Well, the whole thrust of the Atlantica Party is not to become another mainstream party. We’re not going to follow the route of the NDP here in Nova Scotia, in which they’ve sort of arrived as a mainstream party and are sort of in the middle. I see the Atlantica Party as being a reforming party, and once it has achieved its aims, I’m not sure what the purpose of the party would be. We stand for putting up new ideas that you won’t get from the existing parties.

ABM: Other than Atlantic union – which is, frankly, a pretty old idea – what are the new ideas?

JD: These would encompass such things as electoral reform. Okay, let’s tackle that. I would be very happy if, at some point, we would have a referendum on changing the electoral system in Nova Scotia, of which the Atlantica Party would be an advocate. We would actually be a clamouring advocate for electoral reform. I would be extremely happy if we could accomplish that. Whether or not the electors would go for that is entirely up to them.

ABM: Are you referring to some type of proportional representation?

JD: We like the single-transferrable-vote. We like it a lot. Although it’s also been put forward that we should approach this the way they did in British Columbia, where you have a citizens’ committee that gets together and comes up with something that’s not political. For me, of all the issues we have, that’s probably the easiest one. It’s easy to show that the system is broken and that it’s not working. Look, no system is perfect, but we can certainly improve on what we have. We think single-transferrable-vote, a form of proportional representation that has run-offs built into it, is the best. Related to this, we would like to see some political reform, as well. We’d like to see direct elections of the premier. We’d like to see a proper separation of powers. We don’t like the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. We like the idea of popular sovereignty. But, again, we’re most interested in getting the debate started. Ultimately, we want to put forward a proposal where the system can change itself.

ABM: Speaking of change, where does the party stand with respect to some of Atlantic Canada’s key economic issues?

JD: I guess you could call us non-interventionalists. We would like to see, for example, a different fiscal relationship with governments. Rather than accepting federal transfers through ACOA, and others, why don’t we do a deal where we get more tax royalties instead? Or we could apply that money to lowering taxes and costs across the board. We think that government is for creating infrastructure, making a place pleasant to live, helping people, educating people, and generally preparing the ground for industry and businesses to come in and create prosperity.

ABM: But what would your main economic goals try to accomplish?

JD: Clearly, they would include lowering taxes over the long term, and lowering the cost of doing business generally. We also like the idea of freeing up the labour market. We need to make the labour market much more responsive in this region to make it easier for business to do what business does best. This cuts to the core of another priority. We would like to see every person here become an entrepreneur if possible. And we want to focus on indigenous business. Sure, we’ll work with companies who want to move here. But, fundamentally, we believe economic growth comes from local businesses and local entrepreneurs.

ABM: What’s your view of provincial and federal government policies regarding foreign direct investment, which have been major planks of economic development for at least 20 years?

JD: Well, we believe that governments should certainly work with companies who are interested in coming here. We should certainly grease the skids for them: help them find locations; identify areas for infrastructure improvement. But if you are working with companies who are willing to move around and play the game, the chances are that they are going to pick up and leave at some point. At least if you build infrastructure for them, or educate people for them, all this is left behind. What’s more, if you are building indigenous entrepreneurs and companies, these are much less likely to pick up and leave. Eventually, they develop deep roots. I think there’s much less likelihood for a McCain Foods or an Irving company to pull up and move to California.

ABM: So, then, how do we nurture the growth of enterprising, homegrown businesses?

JD: Well, one thing. . .We’d like to see a mandatory credit in high schools where you are required to learn how to set up a business. We’d also like to see the costs for setting up a small business drastically lowered. I had to learn about this first hand when I set up my own business here. I had to hire a lawyer in Toronto because it was cheaper. When you are an entrepreneur preparing to set up, there are high barriers to entry. Why not just have a flat $25 fee? Maybe, you could even do it all on line. We’d like to see those programs where you teach people. But the major hurdle is making Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada a place where companies can make money. That’s how you create prosperity. That’s how you create a virtuous cycle of further investment, capital, productivity, wage growth, job growth. By having low taxes and low costs, including low costs for infrastructure.

ABM: Let’s talk about taxes. The New Brunswick government has recently introduced a tax regime that’s quite favourable to businesses and individuals. It stops short of actually flattening taxes altogether, however. What’s your position regarding a genuine flat tax?        

JD: I’ve some material that suggests that a graduated tax is actually more efficient than a flat tax. I honestly don’t know, beyond the fact that we want to see substantively lower taxes over time. One of things about attracting businesses is creating an environment where you done have undue business risks – things, such as deficits. A deficit is bad because you have to raise a lot of money to cover it. But it also raises the spectre of future tax hikes and future inflation, which are obviously bad for entrepreneurs looking down the road. One of the functions of government over the run is to lower the risks to business through deficit elimination, balancing budgets, and installing a low-cost regime.

ABM: So, from your point of view, government is far too expensive – it’s far too much a burden on the region’s entrepreneurial class.

JD: We like deregulation. We like small government.

ABM: So, is this where Atlantic union fits into the bigger picture?

JD: Absolutely! It is the one concept that dove-tails nicely into everything we’ve discussed. The bottom line is that we like Atlantic union in whatever form we can get it. And just like our positions on electoral reform and political form, we’d actually be a strong advocate for this. The ideal, of course, would be political union of the four Atlantic Provinces. But we should at least create an inter-provincial free trade zone. Anything in this direction is good for all of us – the public and private sectors, alike.

This was a Q & A for Atlantic Business magazine’s November-December 2009 edition. Alec Bruce won Gold in the commentary category at the 2009 Atlantic Journalism Awards for his column, “Is Atlantic Canada truly on its own?”, published in the January-February 2008 edition of Atlantic Business magazine. For the best in business journalism on Canada’s East Coast, go here: www.atlanticbusinessmagazine.com

Happy Boy from Kentucky wants to be my friend. But most of all, he wants to sell me something. Will I be interested in a load of organic top soil, or a dual-rotary reciprocating saw? Will I be interested in a box of male enhancement serum, or a date with a comely 27-year-old refugee from the Ukraine? Will I embrace the world with the click of a mouse? Will I, finally, be happy?

            Welcome to the dawning of the age of social media marketing, when the felicitous camaraderie typical of the new, online networking sites – Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, YouTube, among dozens of others – merges with the crasser requirements of product advertising and brand promotion. The result is a curious combination of cheerful banter and hard-nosed sales, as if the carnival pitchman now buys a round of drinks for the crowd before he separates the fools from their money.

            It was bound to happen. After all, the worldwide web and all of its channels are awash in the silent hum of virtual noise. And because they never sleep, they never stop presenting advertisers and their representatives with what seem to be delicious, inexpensive opportunities to reach audiences increasingly immune to the more traditional, and less interactive, lures of print, radio and television.

Still, the urgent question for anyone in the business of selling is: Does social media marketing actually work? More pointedly, do many advertising agencies and marketing communications firms even know what they’re doing before they advise their clients to spend dwindling budgets on a corner of this brave, new world?

John Sheridan is playfully circumspect, if not exactly sceptical. He’s the St. John’s-based co-owner of something called SocialMedia404, a firm that claims to bridge the gap between traditional business functions and the explosive use of these new technologies. “It’s like teenage sex,” he grins, “Everybody says they’re doing it. But of the ones who are, not many are doing it well. As a result, businesses with tangible goods and services to sell often get burned. They don’t see the value in social media marketing when the predicted return on investment doesn’t materialize.”

Wilma Hartman concurs. She’s director and principal of St. John’s-based Digital Daisy, a training and consulting company that purports to help industry harness online networking opportunities strategically. “Having limited knowledge sometimes gets you into dangerous territory,” she says. “You start running before you’ve learned how to walk. The key to anything in this particular world is deciding your objectives, otherwise it has the potential of taking a lot of time without generating many results.”

All of which sounds remarkably rational in this hyperbolic age. Could it be, then, that social media marketing is no more or less effective than any other kind of advertising? Could it be that success depends, as always, on the message, the fit, the content, and the skill of the executioner?

If so, Happy Boy from Kentucky, and all the other product-pushing bloggers, twits and Facebookers in this curious universe, are asking the wrong question of me and millions of others trolling the Internet for news, views and the occasional deal. It’s not “will I?”, but “why should I?”

She’s young, bright and eminently plugged in. So, naturally, 20-something Jane Shkolnik, digital strategy director of Halifax-based branding agency Revolve, attributes any lack of commercial consortium between sellers and consumers in the social media world to fear, loathing and a broad failure to appreciate the emerging power of this platform. “At the end of the day,” she says, “people are always talking online. So, you have a choice as a marketer: You either engage in the conversation about your brand or you don’t. It’s like death and taxes.”

            Her point is simple: For decades, the advertising industry has been dominated by the principle that giving up control of a brand is the first step on the road to business failure. You keep the brand pristine. You defend it. You push, push and push it. But with social media, where everybody is discussing and sharing everything all the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there’s no longer such a thing as a perfectly static brand. A big part of her job, now, is showing clients how to engage – how to become part of the conversation as a means to ultimately generate sales and revenue.

Bessy Nikolaou, the 20-something senior digital strategist at Time + Space, a Halifax-based media consulting firm, trills the same tune: “What we say to our clients is that resisting social media is almost futile. Customers are in this space and they are online and they are talking about you already. So the key is how to harness social media to communicate. It’s not a monologue anymore. It is a dialogue. And you have to be engaged in an open, deliberate way.”

The irony is almost exquisite: Two indisputably smart women, raised and educated to think for themselves, subscribe to a nearly Orwellian version of their industry’s future. Suddenly, work life is about the virtual “conversation”, the ubiquitous requirement to “engage”, the omnipresent electronic eye that never blinks.

Perhaps, it’s not surprising. The hype surrounding social media is nearly deafening. According to some reports, 73 per cent of Americans and 64 per cent of Europeans are online. In fact, Vancouver-based research firm Ipsos Reid estimates that that Canadians spend 5.4 hours a week accessing social networking sites. Specifically, it says, 37 per cent of Internet-enabled adults in this country regularly visit online communities, while 29 per cent maintain profiles. Nearly 63 per cent of the 18-34 demographic are visitors, and 55 per cent are active “profilers”. Meanwhile, 29 per cent between the ages of 35 and 54 are lurkers, while 21 per cent chat happily in their virtual spaces. Even older folks are getting with the program: In the 55 and over demographic, nine per cent are visitors while the same fraction maintain profiles.

All of which has sparked some breathless prose on the phenomenon. The leading “thinkers” on the growth, character and economic impact of the social media belong to U.S.-based Forrester Research Inc. Two of its associates, Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff, recently wrote a book, entitled Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. In it, they declare, “The groundswell is a social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations. It is not a flash in the pan. It is an irreversible, completely different way for people to relate to companies and each other. Why is this happening now?”

Their contention is that people naturally rebel against institutions. Social networking sites, which enable average folks to communicate seamlessly about everything, undermine the traditional balance of power between producers and consumers. Say Li and Bernoff: “By 2007, 12 years into the Web era, online advertising had reached $14.6 billion (USD) in the United States alone and approached $10 billion (USD) in Europe. Advertisers know that traffic indicates that consumers spend their time and attention online and act to translate that attention into advertising power. It’s not even necessary to sell ads – you can sign your site up for Google AdSense and let Google sell the ads for you and share the cash. While advertising is not the only way to make money online, it’s growing so rapidly that any venture that creates significant traffic can count on revenues.”

Indeed, the authors proclaim: “If you work for a media company, look out. Advertisers are shifting more and more of their money online. The groundswell is creating its own news sites (like Google News or Digg). The very idea of news is changing, as bloggers jostle with journalists for scoops. People take entertainment properties like TV shows and movies, rip them off the airwaves and DVDs, hack them, and repost new versions on YouTube or Dailymotion. . .And if you have a brand, you’re under threat. Your customers have always had an idea about what your brand signifies, an idea that may vary from the image you are projecting. Now they are talking to each other about that idea. They are redefining for themselves the brand you spent millions of dollars, or hundreds of millions of dollars, creating.”

Their grounding point is this: Unless you’re in the game, you’re out of luck – and soon, very soon, you’ll be out of business. But is this claim actually credible?

Research from Knowledge Networks of Menlo Park, California, suggests that something less than five per cent of Internet users regularly turn to social media sites for guidance on products or marketable services. What’s more, the think tank reports, only 16 per cent say they are inclined to buy from companies that advertise there. According to David Tice, the firm’s vice president, “Marketers need to be prudent and people-centric in how they approach social media. Social media users do not have a strong association between these sites and purchase decisions. They see them as being more about a personal connection.”

            The anecdotal evidence seems to support his points. Writing on The Blog Herald, one Chris Garrett postulates, “There are many things social media tools are great for – fun, attracting an audience, customer service, market research. And there are some things I would not suggest social media be used for, such as making direct sales pitches.”

            A professional acquaintance of mine goes even further. “I’m not convinced that social media isn’t an overhyped fad,” she says. “I’ve been on Twitter for over a month now, and posted 50 tweets. I have yet to buy into it as a necessary business function. Facebook? Can’t be bothered. It’s fodder for stalkers. If there’s something I want someone to know about me, I’ll give them a call or email and tell them. YouTube? That’s something I check out when I want to waste time.”

            Of course, none of this stops the global advertising industry – which drew revenues of $600 billion from all media sources in 2007 – from dipping its toes in the Internet-interactive slipstream regularly, and sometimes perilously. Writing in Advertising Age a few weeks ago, Bob Garfield had this to say about a campaign launched by Campbell-Mithun, an agency based in Minneapolis, for the Famous Footwear company:

            “Yikes. What do you get when you combine a banal and utterly generic media campaign that says absolutely nothing about your brand with a social media element destined to generate no interest within society? You get the Famous Footwear campaign, an effort with a germ of an idea, very strong production values and seemingly no understanding of why it is empty – and doomed – in both the traditional realm and the digital one.”

            Garfield continues his assault: “The germ of the idea is this: What if they could take the stupid brand name of the discount-shoe chain that isn’t Payless and somehow give it at least a hint of cache – a tall order for a chain called Famous Footwear. Yeah, the ‘famous’ refers to the famous-name brands sold therein, but it still comes off as one of those silly attempts to glamorize the, ahem, pedestrian.

            “Online, Famous Footwear asks us to consider ways in which we might make a given day ‘famous’. They prime the pump with a montage of people offering suggestions like ‘by running in my first marathon’, ‘I wanna be a ninja’, ‘I would get my laundry done’, ‘I’d grow five inches’, ‘I’d do a tap dance for you’ and so on. Perhaps you notice what all of these flights of fancy have in common: They have nothing to do with fame.

            “This may explain why, after three weeks of soliciting video uploads, Famous Footwear’s site was overflowing with exactly three. . .that is, before the videos vanished from the site altogether. It was, they say, a temporary technical glitch, but no big deal either way. Without the videos handy, we still get through the day famously.”

            Ouch! But, Campbell-Mithun’s misadventure notwithstanding, are there circumstances under which social media marketing actually works? Are there times when it can argue a compelling business case?

For Paula Dyke, Director of Public Affairs at Moncton-based Atlantic Lottery Corporation, the opportunity to demonstrate some online, interactive marketing savvy arrived only recently. Two months ago, the firm collaborated with its counterparts across Canada in the launch of Loto Max, the first new game in 15 years. The product, targeted to an 18-35 demographic, appeals directly to the web-travelling consumer. “We recognize that we have a whole other segment of gamers out there,” she explains. “They live in the virtual world. This is the biggest change in our audience in years. If you look back, you can see how fundamentally technology has changed the world. I used to cart around a big, giant cell phone. Today, I can’t imagine being without Blackberry service. So, for us, it’s all about being able to communicate with consumers in the virtual world – the world in which they are most comfortable.”

            To accomplish this, ALC participates in the national Loto Max Facebook page, and maintains a twitter service. Regionally, the corporation is promoting the product and its own organizational brand through goingtothemax.com – a web site it used in September to deftly advertise a series of live events in St. John’s, Fredericton, Halifax, and Charlottetown. According to the online blurb, “Going To The Max is all about getting your friends together and doing something you’ve never even thought of. It’s about stepping up, stepping in and stepping off. This time around you’re stepping into a giant bubble and flying down a hill. Next time you could be stepping off a ledge strapped to a bungee cord. Whatever the event is, you can be sure it’ll push your excitement sensor to the max.”

            The objective, Dyke says, is to overlay the corporation’s identity with the notion of having fun – in other words, pulling consumers to the brand, rather than pushing them to buy a particular product. “Through the social media, we’re starting the conversation about what is going to the max,” she says. “The specific events were all about getting your friends together and rolling down a hill in a giant plastic sphere. This is part of a long-term strategy. We’re hoping to do this year after year.”

ALC deployed a similar tactic in its $1.1-million sponsorship of the Charlottetown Canada Games in August. It sent a team from its public affairs department to cover the event as “citizen reporters”. Says Dyke: “They blogged and twittered and took photos to post online. Initially, we thought maybe only our gang at the company would follow all of this. But we wound up with more than 200 followers on Twitter during that two-week period. By the time it was over, we had registered between 5,000 and 6,000 hits on our blog.”     

            It’s too soon to declare unequivocal success, but the overall strategy seems to be gaining traction. For one thing, ALC’s Facebook page shows dozens of sturdy new fans. “You have to remember that this is an audience that doesn’t want to be sold,” Dyke says. “And we’ve learned a few things. You can’t overdose people. You can only put so many tweets out there before you get blocked. We’re trying to start a momentum – a groundswell – and let people catch on and share it with friends.”

            In fact, nothing reveals the inherent flexibility of social media marketing better than its tendency to light fires under specific, clearly articulated ideas. Lori Cox is the president of Halifax-based Sconestone.com, a networking site and non-profit organization that promotes humanitarianism around the world. “Sculpted by Nova Scotia artist Warren MacLeod, the Sconestone, itself, is travelling the world on a journey of kindness,” she says. “It is designed to be an inspiration to all who touch it, to make the world a better place.”

            The website is the virtual meeting place that both tracks the stone’s progress and provides an online forum for people to share their experiences and report their random acts of “pay-it-forward” kindness. “Right now, the global community is starting to come together around this,” Cox says. “We have visitors from all over the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. . .Social media has 100 per cent facilitated this campaign. The challenge now is that we’re growing faster than we were prepared.”

            Indeed, since the campaign’s launch last April, the website has been averaging between 30,000 and 60,000 views a month, and Sconestone’s Facebook page has welcomed more than 200 friends.

Observers point out that one of the biggest difficulties in ascertaining the commercial value of social media marketing is the youthfulness of the very platforms on which it depends. MySpace launched in 2003. Facebook – which was founded by a gaggle of roommates at Harvard and whose name derives from the sobriquet given to orientation publications that university administrations distribute to students at the start of the academic year – took its first breath in 2004. Twitter, established in 2006, is a squalling infant. And every year, more sites dramatically appear, seemingly out of thin air.

            All of which explains why many businesses remain suspicious, even fearful, of social media. There’s been no time to truly understand it. And what can’t be understood can’t be controlled. After all, it’s one thing to fail in the real world, where ads can be pulled and damage control is ably assisted by the rubric “out of sight, out of mind.” It’s quite another to bomb online where fixing mistakes is a little like removing urine from a swimming pool.

            It tends to explain why traditional advertising agencies and marketing communications firms – which are struggling to augment their own capabilities as they gingerly escort their clients up the ever-steepening learning curve – are reticent to reveal much in the way of numbers, particularly revenue generated for themselves or their clients through social media. Recent clues suggest that all may not be entirely well for at least some of Atlantic Canada’s leading as men and women.

            After 15 years in business, Sackville, N.B.-based SGCI recently shut down its operations and dismissed its 12 employees. “The economic downturn was ultimately the reason to close,” owner Blaine VanSnick told  a local newspaper. “There was simply no hope of a turnaround in the near future. There just weren’t many opportunities out there.”

            Meanwhile, Colour, one of the largest agencies in the region, parted company with its vice president of social media, Carman Pirie, in September. He had this to say on his blog: “It’s been a great ride for almost four years, but I’m happy to report that my friendship with the entire team there remains.”

            Reached for comment, David Hawkins, president of the firm’s New Brunswick operations confirmed that it will continue to work with Pirie “on a contractual basis” and that “the team will continue to advance social media. That’s where we are going. There’s no question we will invest in this space.”

            How, of course, is the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question. For Wilma Hartman, it comes down to education and advice. “With social media, you are not dealing with an audience to which you can push a message,” she says. “You are dealing with people who decide to be consumers. So we have to be more focussed on giving. The audience is more used to value, and this value has to be free. If we provide information, or insights or even comic relief, we provide value and we keep our audience.”

            In fact, says John Sheridan, the basic principles of social media marketing are the same as those of traditional approaches. The overarching goal for any advertising agency or marketing communications firm is to deliver customers to their clients. If increasing numbers of those customers are spending more time online, and less time reading newspapers and magazines, listening to the radio, or watching TV, then you must craft a careful methodology to reach them in the way they want to be reached.

            “Business is all about making money, and spending less money,” he says. “That hasn’t changed. And the advent of social media won’t change it in the future. From a business perspective, you don’t pick up a hammer and then ask yourself what you’re going to do with it. First, you must have an objective. Then you must understand your audience. Then you craft the strategies. Then you implement the strategies. And, finally you sustain – and adjust, according to your evaluations – your program.”

             It’s not rocket science. But as businesses and their advertising gurus and web wizards evolve, mature and become more adept at manipulating the tools of social media, the fewer “happy boys from Kentucky” will clutter the virtual universe with their sledge-hammer pitches for dubious goods and services.

             And that’s something which should make everyone – consumers, advertisers and marketers, alike – very happy, indeed.

This was the cover story for Atlantic Business magazine’s November-December 2009 edition. Alec Bruce won Gold in the commentary category at the 2009 Atlantic Journalism Awards for his column, “Is Atlantic Canada truly on its own?”, published in the January-February 2008 edition of Atlantic Business magazine. For the best in business journalism on Canada’s East Coast, go here: www.atlanticbusinessmagazine.com