The most popular destination for these businesses is South East Asia, with Singapore, The Philipines, Malaysia and Indonesia topping the list, followed by East Asia and China, Japan and Mongolia. Asian markets are the main focus for Australian businesses, due to their proximity as well as their speed of growth.

“SE Asia is a natural choice for many Australian businesses looking to expand operations and break into new and emerging markets,” said William Willems, Regus Regional Vice President Australia, New Zealand and South East Asia. “The lower export, travel and freight costs are also key selling points. This is in comparison to Northern and Western Europe, where only 27% of firms plan to expand.”

Despite world economic outlook, only three percent of businesses said they were looking to downgrade their international operations, suggesting that 2012 will be a growth year for Australian businesses.

Some businesses were unsure about international growth, with 17 percent said that they were undecided as to whether they were going to expand or contract in 2012, with 42 percent of them saying that was due to focus on Australian growth. Willems suggests caution before heading overseas. “The strong intention of many Australian firms to expand in 2012 is an exciting trend. However, some firms may underestimate the costs and challenges of operating in a different market. It takes time to explore the economic, political and legal landscape of a new country, including the terms of trade, tax and the payments system. Having a strong understanding of the business culture is also important, in order to find new partners and identify new customers and partners,” he said.

Mr O’Farrell said an assessment had found the potential benefits of the project were outweighed by the possible adverse impacts.

The $2.5 billion coal-loader was proposed to be built on the former BHP steelworks site at Mayfield. Yet the site is “more suited to handling multi product, container, general cargo and dry bulk terminal freight,” said O’Farrell in a January 28 statement.

He said the proposal for the large scale coal loading facility at Mayfield had created uncertainty in the coal industry.

“The government will continue to build on the existing industry-supported framework for the expansion of coal terminal capacity,” O’Farrell said.

Tinker’s proposal, under his Hunter Ports Ltd, would have had a capacity of 100 million tonnes a year and included a new rail link to take coal trains out of Mayfield.

The Hunter Ports project was competing with the $5 billion Port Waratah Coal Services proposal for a fourth loader, to expand existing port facilities.

Port Waratah Coal Services  said the decision of the NSW government to reject the Hunter Ports ‘Terminal 5’ proposal gave the Hunter Valley coal industry certainty. The group labelled the proposal an “incomplete concept from outside the hard-won industry framework”, saying that it did not seem to have costed or modelled against the overall coal chain.

Australian coal exporters have recently been struggling with existing railroads and ports under pressure to cope with increased demand.

The port of Newcastle, located about 125 kilometers north-northeast of Sydney is the world’s largest thermal coal port.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd announced today that Venamore is expected to take up her appointment next month.

Venamore will replace Glenn White, who has been Ambassador since January 2009.

Currently Australia has a partnership with Jordan that includes trade, agriculture, investment, education, defence and cultural cooperation, including archaeological research, over 50 years.

Recent new areas of bilateral cooperation include law enforcement and customs cooperation. Bilateral merchandise trade stood at $189 million for  the year 2010 – 11.

As a strategically significant country in the Middle East, Australia has welcomed Jordan’s efforts to promote peace talks in the region.

Previously Venamore was serving as counsellor at the Australia High Commission in London.

Many of those retailers are now recognising the change in buying habits is permanent and are getting on the bandwagon.

This acceptance of online sales has positive implications for sectors of the Australian market with a product that suits an international consumer market.  The costs of transport to main destinations abroad by parcel can be reasonably standardised; and after also ensuring payment is made up-front, and the entry documents (where required) meet the overseas customs requirements, it can be an exciting and lucrative addition to the domestic consumer market.

Of course 1) getting found by an overseas buyer and 2) capturing their interest so that they want to buy, are two key steps that precede the sale.  This involves refining the website so that it receives a high ranking on the main search engines, and for Google, perhaps paying for positioning.  Then, having been found, you have a very short time span to capture the attention, interest and desire of a potential buyer once they land on your site.

Structuring a website for domestic and overseas visitors requires some finessing.  Some companies set up separate sites in major markets so that they are perceived as a ‘local’ supplier.  Another check point is ensuring your IP is protected in your key target markets, and equally that you are not infringing someone else’s IP already registered in that market.

You need to succinctly outline your USP….why would someone in say Tokyo buy from you? Having text in Japanese may be a good start. Then outlining the originality/quality/uniqueness of your product in values a Japanese consumer would appreciate. Finally clear pricing and a simple delivery process will be the things that clinch the deal.  Many suppliers include delivery in their pricing, or if not, set out standard costs per region so the buyer knows exactly what they are up for.  Are there guarantees for delivery, returns, exchange (for clothing sizes) etc that take the risk away for the buyer?

There are some very successful Australian suppliers currently doing very well selling to the global consumer market.  To do it properly though requires focus:  monitoring hits, responding to questions and refreshing information so it is always current.  Your website does become the shop front for your business, open to the world 24/7.

So for all businesses with a consumer focus, you need to actively consider the potential overseas customer. 2012 might be the time to start, or your competitors could be taking your market!

Watch the video here.

This was an increase of five percent from the previous year, with iron ore showing a massive 70 percent growth, accounting for more than half of the state’s total merchandise exports. Other exports of gas, crude petroleum, precious metal ores and nickel ores also showed very strong growth.

South Australia’s exports also grew over 21 percent, primarily driven by wheat. The ACT and NSW showed some growth but in numbers far smaller than WA and SA while Queensland’s export numbers dropped due to last year’s extreme weather including floods and Cyclone Yasi.

New South Wales remained the nation’s largest importer, with $104 billion worth of goods and services entering the state.

The value of Australian exports also grew 17.3 percent in the financial year 2010/11 with price being the main driver as volumes remained steady.

Full analyses and tables from the annual publication Australia’s Trade by State and Territory 2010-11 are available without charge on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.

Of course, having a bit of a national conversation with ourselves isn’t a bad thing. It’s healthy to ask questions. And there can be some spinoffs. A bit of navel gazing by Australians lead to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki‘s mini-thesis and why belly button fluff is always blue (true blue that is, or is it green, Karl?).

But as healthy as questioning is, it is important to know to have a good amount of evidence on side to really get a handle on things. In these days of 24 hour news cycles, and instant opinion making, having a loud megaphone and the capacity to put the boot into someone or some group seems to carry more weight than a considered opinion based on research or a fair minded assessment of a complex issue affecting the nation. Whether it’s a shock jock at home or a celebrated expat touching down on an airport tarmac to launch a diatribe on the national character, some of the louder voices of public opinion drown out the voices of other Australian citizens.

But as we approach January 26th, we should clear the air by disposing a few great Aussie myths, which will fill the air waves this week. By doing that, we’ll have a better informed dialogue about the future of the nation. If New Zealanders are once were warriors, Australians are once were worriers. As a result of our mass worrying several myths are created as fact, and distort the debate. So if we can dispose the myth, then we will literally have no worries. Let’s take few myths that you always hear around this time of year.

Myth one is one we always hear that ‘immigrants take our jobs.’ This has come to the fore recently in the form of Liberal MP Theresa Gamboro’s ‘scientific’ observation that immigrants don’t know how to queue of use deodorant. Putting the great Rexona question aside, in the labour market the evidence shows that immigrants make a positive contribution to the labour market. Immigrants make good exporters. According to Sensis research, 50 percent of all exporters are born overseas. They bring skills, networks, language culture and a bit of entrepreneurial flair and enrich us as an economy and a society. Think Westfield, TNT, Myer, Bing Lee, Crazy Johns all started by migrants. Think of the Australian business hall of fame. Names like Lowy Abeles Parbo come to mind. Immigrants make good employers and good workers. Exporting businesses (many started by immigrants) pay 60 percent higher wages than other companies, and provide job security and higher occupational health and safety (O H & S) standards. As employees, immigrants are often highly skilled and work ready. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows that while immigrants account for less than 30 percent of the labour force, they have claimed more than half the jobs created since the start of 2010. Immigrants are both employable and self-employable.

Myth two is that ‘we’re experiencing a brain drain’. Apparently all our best and brightest are leaving and this is harming our economy. Well. It is true that there are 1 million Aussies overseas, according to the seminal work on this subject by the Lowy Institute, but it is more ‘brain gain’ than ‘brain drain’. Many Australians work and study abroad – especially in their younger years – get experience and like a boomerang, they come back, especially when wanting to raise a family. But it’s not a bad thing for Australians to have overseas experience, and if some stay on and become Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, editor of The Times, or hold down key positions in Shanghai, Seattle or Sao Paulo, that just opens up strong networks for the rest of us. Also with the global financial jitters affecting northern hemisphere financial markets, more expat Aussies will be coming home than we thought.

Myth three is ‘Australian workers are bludgers’. When Jeff Kennett was Premier of Victoria and attacking public holidays, annual leave and penalty rates, labour market research showed that Australia was mid-table in terms of public holidays and most countries paid annual leave loading, annual leave and leave bonuses. On international comparisons, Australians are relatively hard working; they focus more on practical productive outcomes (than clocking up hours at the office or other workplace) and have a moderate amount of public holidays. We’ll be taking Australia Day off, but Chinese New Year holidays and celebrations last two weeks and other countries have similar festivals. According to international brand surveys, Australians are perceived to ‘work hard and play hard’ and their easy going nature should not be confused with sloth or laziness.

Myth four is ‘We’re just China’s quarry and Japan’s beach.’ This pops up from time to time along with the comments that we are not clever, innovative or ‘high tech’ enough. Australia’s chief scientist (along with the head of Hewlett Packard) said 10 years ago that Australia needed to forget commodities (he said this just before our record terms of trade boom) and build a strong technology sector like Taiwan of the Australian dollar ‘would be 30 cents US by 2010’. The comment ignores the fact that innovation comes from many industries including Australia’s traditional areas of comparative advantage in mining and agriculture. Everywhere I go in the world, I meet small Perth companies that sell technology to the Siberian or Brazilian mining sectors, McLaren Vale winemakers selling marketing software and services to Argentina and France, and everyone knows about the innovation in Australian surf wear, surfboard and sports innovation. Check out how many Billabong boardies you next see in Bordeaux, Bali or on the surf coast of Brazil, Peru, Chile or South Africa. Innovation comes from many places, not just the computer industry.

And finally, there is a myth that ‘We are too far away to matter.’ Well that may have been so in 1788 when we were a convict colony waiting for ships to come from England. The brilliant and eminent Australian historian wrote eloquently about this in his famous treatise The Tyranny of Distance. Now in the 21st century, Australia finds itself at the right place at the right time in the Asian time zone, and supplying what China, India, ASEAN and the rest of the emerging world need. With euro-gloom and American blues economically, the rise of Asia may well see Australians talking less about ‘the Tyranny of Distance’ and more about ‘the Power of Proximity’ in years to come.

Happy Australia Day!

Tim Harcourt is the JW Nevile Fellow in Economics, Australian School of Business, UNSW and author of The Airport Economist: www.timharcourt.com

In the Australian Financial Review this week, Rhiannon said that Agricultural Minister Joe Ludwig couldn’t budge on the February deadline for accrediting live sheep exports to the Middle East.

“This is a litmus test of the government’s commitment to live export reforms and Senator Ludwig will betray the public if he buckles to industry bullying and gives sheep traders more time to conform”, said Senator Rhiannon.

Live exporters were given till the end of February to conduct an independent audit of their supply chain to show that animals are processed according to internationally accepted standards.

“In October the government set a clear deadline of 29 February to comply with supply chain accreditation. The industry has had over four months to get its act together and there is no excuse for extending the deadline,” Rhiannon added. ”Industry claims that the rules do not suit Middle East markets are far from convincing. Supply chain assurances to improve animal welfare standards should not be negotiable.”

Rhiannon went on to say that sheep traders needed to be more aware of their supply chain in order to guarantee animal welfare. ”Too many sheep die at sea and are subject to unacceptable suffering, both on board ships and once they arrive in destination countries. Holding sheep traders to a deadline to have their supply chains audited is the very least the government can do.”

Rhiannon said the Greens were still determined to end live export. ”When parliament resumes the Greens will reintroduce a bill to end the live export industry.”

“They made A$6 from me during the 90 minutes that I took up a chair and table in their café,” says Patterson, a marketing professor at the Australian School of Business. “They have quite large stores and their model is that they charge a slight premium, but you can sit there for an hour on one coffee. With the rent on those premises, that business model is not sustainable. It doesn’t surprise me that they lost so much money in Australia.”

The story of Starbucks in Australia is a salutary lesson in business. It’s the tale of an organisation seeking world domination in its field that stepped into a new market without first testing the waters. What went wrong for the company down under has been analysed in a paper by Patterson and fellow marketing professor Mark Uncles with Jane Scott, also from the Australian School of Business.

When Starbucks entered the Australian market in 2000, it was one of the biggest coffee chains globally, opening one new store every day somewhere in the world, notes Patterson. Its success in the US, which had not previously enjoyed a strong coffee-drinking culture, had given the brand great confidence to enter other markets including Japan (1996) and China (1998). The company now has more than 15,000 stores in 44 territories.

But in mid 2008, Starbucks’ management announced that it would close 61 of its 84 Australian stores. The closures took place swiftly – within one month. Losses were enormous, including 685 jobs and A$143 million. Just 23 Australian stores were left operating in prime locations. What went so wrong?

Avoidable Errors

Patterson can identify several major problem areas that, in combination, caused the decline of Starbucks in Australia. They begin with the brand overestimating its points of difference, as well as the customer-perceived value of its services. After giving Starbucks a try, many Australians – who, in the majority, lived in cities with already thriving café cultures and experienced, world-class baristas – failed to understand why Starbucks charged more for its coffee.

The second serious problem was that service at Starbucks suffered as the number of stores grew at a fast pace and began employing younger, less-experienced staff.

Issue three was the mistake of failing to adjust its product to suit Australians’ coffee tastes, which lean more towards Europe. Instead the company introduced its American offering. And that helped to create the fourth glitch – a perception that the brand, due to its rapid expansion over just a few years, was forcing itself onto an unwilling public.

In contrast to Asian territories where coffee houses previously didn’t exist, in Australia Starbucks entered an extremely competitive and mature café market. Not only that, but as Starbucks did not advertise in the mass media – relying instead on its reputation – it failed to communicate its brand. “It is probably against their corporate ethos, but I would have done some above-the-line advertising to promote the brand,” Patterson suggests. “I am sure the majority of the Australian public did not know much about them.” Above-the-line advertising refers to advertisements aimed at mass audiences on platforms such as television, cinema, radio, newspapers and magazines and the internet.

Finally, Starbucks’ business model was simply unsustainable. Leasing a large, expensive shop space and inviting customers to sit around for as long as they like while spending very little was never a good idea in a highly competitive and mature market, asserts Patterson. In addition, he points out, the company owned its stores, rather than using a franchise model, which added not only to its financial pressures but also meant it lacked local knowledge.

Lessons in Decline

Business specialist Hunter Leonard, founder of Melbourne-based BlueFrog Marketing and author of the book, Marketing Has No Off Switch, says the Starbucks case offers three major business lessons. “First, research is the key to statistics,” he says. “If you don’t research then you can’t grow a business. That’s a golden rule. If you’re not surveying customers regularly then you may do well in spite of yourself, but you won’t unlock potential growth.

“The second lesson involves the importance of identifying a target market. Starbucks was going for everyone. They claimed to offer a premium coffee and therefore charged premium prices, but that did not wash with Australian coffee drinkers. They should have been targeting young people who care less about the quality of the coffee and more about the quality of the experience. They should have marketed their big, sugary coffees at people aged 14 to 25.

“Thirdly, a very valuable tip for businesses launching a new product or in a new market is to lose the ego. Just because you say you’re after global domination doesn’t mean customers will allow it … Australians react very badly to people banging their chests.”

While Patterson upholds the success of the Starbucks model elsewhere in the world and credits the company with growing the coffee category internationally, he says the brand’s major mistake was not creating any barriers to entry. “There was nothing to stop a competitor coming in and setting up against Starbucks,” he says. “I don’t necessarily mean a global chain. Look at the number of independent coffee shops around. You can just buy a high-quality coffee machine, get a trained barista on board, lease a shop and design a good atmosphere – that’s all anyone needs to do to compete. Starbucks did not create a sustainable credible advantage for themselves.”

The original advantage Starbucks did have was their level of personal service. Staff made eye contact with customers as soon as they entered the store, they remembered names of regular customers and were happy to make a drink according to specific requests. But even that advantage was easily replicable, and it was completely lost when head office began using key performance indicators to measure the sales of frontline staff. “Not only did staff have customer service targets around engaging people and ensuring customer satisfaction, but the bosses said they had to sell a certain number of coffees and cakes each day. Staff were saying they could make the sales, but they couldn’t engage the customers at the same time,” Patterson says.

According to Patterson’s report, the major takeaways from the Starbucks Australia experience are:

• Crossing international borders is risky, so in-depth research is absolutely vital.

• Think global, but act local. Even well known and well-liked brands must adapt their products for local tastes.

• Establish a differential advantage then strive to sustain it, ensuring your product is unique enough to stand out amongst its competitors, and that it  always will.

• Keep sight of what first generated the business’s success. At Starbucks, sales targets destroyed the idea of high-quality service that the brand had been built upon and which was the only competitive advantage it had.

• Consider the viability of the business model. If your model relies on charging a premium price, for instance, ensure the product on offer will be recognised as premium.

This article first appeared on Knowledge@Australian School of Business website.

Winners of the Best New Tourist Attraction award, the company were recognised for their contribution to tourism in the Southeast Asian region with their ‘Wonder Full’ Light and Water Spectacular, produced for the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort in Singapore. Laservision’s creation was selected for its creativity in design, functionality, harmony with the environment, and the overall quality experienced by audiences. “Laservision has a long and enviable track record of producing number one night time tourist attractions around the globe,” said Shannon Brooks, director of projects and marketing at Laservision. “From Singapore’s ‘Wonder Full’ Light and Water Spectacular to Hong Kong’s  ‘Symphony of Lights’; the holder of the Guinness World Record for the Largest Light & and Sound Show in the world. The recognition by ASEANTA of this success brings credibility to companies like Laservision who are at the forefront of the entertainment, attractions and tourism industry.”

Guests at the ceremony included the secretary general of the United Nations World Trade Organisation, Mr Taleb Rafai, who stated in his opening address: “With over 75 million tourists visiting the ASEAN region last year, generating 1.2 trillion dollars in tourism revenue, the ASEAN nations form a significant part of the world’s tourism industry.”