Global CRM

Global CRM

I've been involved recently with developing curricular material both for CRM and CEM (Customer Experience Management) training. It's a fascinating exercise.

First, people like me (aka CONSULTANTS) have a bad rap: we offer superficial advice and we leave the scene before the real work gets done. We'll that's not always true, but generally the executives I deal with take a jaundiced view of consultants (not of me, of course!).

But to create curricular material requires that one focus on what is proven and what is really practiced. This means I've been devoting a lot of time determining the state of the art of marketing, operational and strategic thinking -- and behaviors -- coming out of global companies.

This is not a stretch for me, particularly, since I try my best to keep up with this stuff anyway.

But it does force me to ORGANIZE this information so it can be quickly understood and, ideally, adopted.

And this is where it's interesting.

Because, in training as in life, adopting what you learn is plain hard. I just finished a series of articles for CRM Today that featured my interview with EuroRSCG's strategy planner Jerome Guilbert. One of the points hidden in the interview is that his customer strategies only partly penetrate his client's operations and thinking. Here he is, one of the smartest guys in the customer strategy business, and big companies don't really "get" what he's telling them.

Even if they understand it, they're not ready to act on it.

And that's what happens with curricular material. How can you present the latest research and "best practices" and hope to get the audience to both understand it and act on it?

I've been using a lot of case studies lately. That's been terrific. I found them especially helpful in my seminars recently in Malaysia. But case studies are compelling stories -- with points that emerge in discussion -- and they can only go so far in helping someone actually convert the knowledge into action in his/her specific case.

It's tough.

But here's what I've concluded, after doing dozens of modules of this type: I'm training thinkers, not necessarily doers. The key first step in CRM -- and CEM -- is recognizing the value of customers. It's too glib to say they're "important". How do you measure their value? How do you create more? How do you describe customers' needs? How do you monitor them? All these "hows" must be preceded by this simple realization. Everything nowadays starts with customer insight.

If I can get that across, I've accomplished something.

Of course, the devil's in the details.

Which is where consultants come in, I guess. :)


Global CRM

Global CRM

Every once in a while, you gotta let loose a little. Even if it hurts.

My pal and CRM guru extraordinaire, Paul Greenberg (see the link to his blog to your right), said, 'Paulie, great blog! But you GOTTA LET LOOSE!"

Now, I don't think anyone who saw the two Pauls together (see the picture from the 2005 Greater China CRM, where the two Pauls sandwich Ro and Rafael) would think of Felix and Oscar of Neil Simon's The Odd Couple. We're more like Niles and Frasier. Peas in a pod. But when it comes to writing, Greenberg is the free-form, stream-of-consciousness, in-the-body, Moveable Feast Meets Langston Hugues Meets Garcia-Marquez Meets Jack Kerouac winner, hands down.

It's all part of the Greenberg Gestalt, though -- it's not that he's primarily a WRITER. He's a LIVER. With caramelized ONIONS. No -- I mean, the guy just embraces life. And in fact he embraces a good many attractive young women, who flock to him like paper bits to a plastic comb in a cold Connecticut December. You should see him in action at a convention. It's true, from Shanghai to Washington DC.

The thing I love about Paul Greenberg is that he gets as silly crazy as I do about simple observations that are Important and Obvious.

Things like this:

1. Customers are critical to a business' success.
2. Customers are people, too.
3. Get off your darn call center script and TALK TO ME.
4. Don't put lipstick on a crappy CRM system and call it Cinderella.

I'll be writing about CEM here, soon. It's the next TLA. (Anybody who can guess what TLA stands for wins a free copy of my latest peer-reviewed journal, worth $1.)

So, I loosened up a little, Paul G. I'm exhausted. Now it's time to think about the next writerly, non-loose blog posting.

Old habits die hard, baby.


World Intellectual Property Day

Today is World Intellectual Property Day. And, in honor of that, I'd like to send out a hello to my fellow strategy guru Sallie, active in the World Intellectual Property Organization and in battles on behalf of actors and producers whose films are exploited worldwide. She was travelling overseas once (I think to Moscow), and kicking back in a hotel room bed watching a recent film on the TV when, lo and behold, the telltale warning message flashed across the bottom of the screen: "Property of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" -- the people who put on the Oscars(tm). Clearly someone had swiped one of the preview videos sent out to AMPAS members (all entertainment industry insiders) during the Oscar voting season.

When she told me the story, we laughed. We were aghast. And I totally forgot to ask Sallie if she liked the movie.


Global CRM

Global CRM

Here is a great link offered by Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge e-newsletter, profiling the Chinese consumer. Which is to say, they profile the affluent, urban Chinese consumer: They're easier to find, and they buy.

One warning about this content, though: As smart as the guys at Harvard may be, the authors didn't flinch (when they should have) when they used the phrase, "If only 2 percent of this total estimated market were to buy cars in the next two years ... ". That's a tell-tale phrase that someone's trying to sell you something. Every crazy business plan has a phrase like that in it. It's not that you shouldn't look at things like marketshare, but to do business in China, you have to assume that it does not represent a mass market for many, or even most, products. You should be asking, 2 percent of what?

Assume that you'll be competing with existing products in multiple niches defined by characteristics you do not yet understand. When you consider the Chinese market this way, that fraction of marketshare that would make you enormously wealthy in your business projections turns out to be far tinier.

You may get lucky. But one of the reasons China gets so much FDI (according to a recent academic study by Michael Nicholson of the FTC's Bureau of Economics) may be that direct investment is a hedge against political, regulatory and cultural risks (in Nicholson's analysis, the focus was on IP theft). A key source to find out more is Horstmann, Ignatius and James Markusen's "Licensing versus Direct Investment: A Model of Internalization by the Multinational Enterprise," which appeared in 1987 in the Canadian Journal of Economics.

In short, so much money may be flowing into China from the outside because it is NOT a place you can just "get lucky" -- unless you don't mind that the variability in luck has downsides as well as upsides.

A little bit of homework goes a long way.


Global CRM

Walls Between Customer Data: Compliant or Idiotic?

International Rectifier is a top MOSFET company -- and now it has a global support solution from one of the best, most innovative CRM companies, RightNow Technologies. (Check out IR here .)

RightNow's solution has attempted to fix part of the problem that plagues global companies: How do you create a single view of customer interactions across different systems, regulatory regimes, cultures and languages, and report information into the company to drive continuous improvement of your customer relationships? IR has made strides with RightNow to make such information available transparently across its business units globally. For companies who consciously model their operations globally, such technology is essential. (See the CitiBank story below to tell you how to do this wrong.)

International Rectifier is now able to use a "follow-the-sun" schedule for the customer support centers. This reduces personnel costs. It uses the incident and knowledge management components of RightNow's solution to leverage the experience of each customer support center. In short, it's a classic "project our value" global technology solution. By that I mean that IR is scaling a single solution across all its units. The question (which we hope to address in the next installment after I interview folks at RightNow), is how much localization had to be performed on the data sharing rules. (This is, of course, an incredibly hot topic. Companies are constrained by regulations that differ across regimes. Check out this story from Information Week.)

Good for IR. But companies who are in fact global just don't behave as if they are.

When I was in Kuala Lumpur leading a workshop on best practices (working with my charming colleagues at Pacific Conferences), a participant put his finger on a big problem. Some airlines don't keep track of their loyalty program participants using the same coding system from country to country. He was a dual citizen, US and Malaysia, and yet all his frequent flyer miles on his US account were not available to him in Malaysia. (I don't get it, either.) What was even more egregious, they wouldn't transfer his frequent flyer miles from his older US account to his new Malaysian one. As far as the airline was concerned, he was two different people.

Can you hear the sound of customer value being destroyed?

This is just the global example. Domestic companies have the same problem when their databases don't talk to each other.

I've got whopping student loans from CitiBank, thanks to my fantastic global executive MBA program TRIUM. Somehow I've gotten on mailing lists from a dozen banks, all of them slobbering on me to get me to consolidate my student loans with them. In theory, I should do this before July, when interest rates are going up.

One of those banks hounding me is ... CitiBank.

Just got a call from them today, wanting me to move my loan from their student loan department to their consumer loan department, at a lower interest rate.

This situation is even worse. Not only do I think that CitiBank is nuts for not knowing that I have my student loan with them, but they're just about to lose interest income because their loan departments are competing with each other in all the wrong ways.

The problem may partially be business rules that put up walls between customer databases at CitiBank. It may be a regulatory issue. But my perception is just that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. From my perspective, they're slapping themselves around in a fevered attempt to ... what? Annoy clients and lose interest income?

But the global issues are delicate, and worth looking into. RightNow's approach is worth talking about. We'll do that in our next posting.


China, the IMF and Governance

Again, China

An interesting article in today's Washington Post by Paul Blustein. Check it out here. In a nutshell, the International Monetary Fund's long mission of providing emergency loans to sovereign nations in financial trouble appears to be shifting. Countries appreciated the funds in the past when they were in trouble, but often didn't appreciate the onerous -- and often inappropriate -- requirements attached to the money. As a result, according to Mr. Blustein, many developing economies have been managing to keep a lot of cash on hand to avoid the heavy hand of the IMF.

Another critique of the IMF has been of its governance and representation. Mr. Blustein reminds us that countries like South Korea and China have been developing rapidly, contributing to the world economy far in excess of their representation within the IMF.

China certainly has a lot of cash on hand, and it is a net exporter, contributing tremendously to world economic growth, and simply becoming more integrated and important. As of this weekend, it will now have a larger share of voting power -- although, like the United States, that voting power will under-represent its actual economic contributions.

What's interesting to me are at least two characteristics that have led China to a position of greater power in the IMF. One is their cash on hand. The IMF wants to remain relevant, so it actually wants China in the mix, but all this cash means that China doesn't need to be a part of the IMF -- except to have more influence. So this is more a political chip being offered by the IMF than an economic one. And, may I say, the US has been following policies that have driven down the price of dollars. If any of us worry that China owns too much of our money and can therefore threaten us in a mass sale of those dollars, we only have our own leaders to blame.

A second consideration is what has been driving China's growth. By its own admission, much of the China-US trade imbalance is overstated because products we import from China are actually the product of US foreign direct investment in China. Their implication is that China isn't nearly the productive giant that the trade imbalance might imply. Nevertheless, it is measures such as their productivity that give them more seats at the table. Again, anyone is worred that China has too much influence, it is because US investors have flocked there.

My own view is this. So what? The IMF is actually doing its job by creating an international financial environment that encourages savings and better domestic economic management. It actually needs to make itself irrelevant. The question then becomes, if the IMF is become less of a bank of last resort, what role would it play? I'm a do-gooder at heart. I'd like to see it do some good. For example, offer cheaper money for transnational projects that mitigate famine, that improve the environment, that increase a quality water supply, and that discourage the root causes of war. Oh, I can see some of you rolling your eyes. But this follows a classic enlightened economic policy that much of the West has been pursuing for a long time: Economic integration and stable natural resource availability generate peace.

And, as for China's role in the world, I say, bring it on. The key arguments that concern many about China (resource use, military build-up, corruption, human rights) are valid but, I believe, short-lived in the face of economic and political integration, rule of law and a free press. They move slowly, but they'll get there, if we continue to provide good examples. The Chinese people I know are smart, eager, globally aware, good, hard-working folks. Fifty years ago, China was on the other side of the world. Now, China is our neighbor. Let's keep our eyes on the big picture: We share a planet and an economy. We are already embracing. We must make it a meaningful embrace by encouraging what works and being crystal clear when they -- and we here in the US -- are doing something that cannot be sustained.


The Issue of China

China Challenges Us

I've been talking a lot to colleagues over the last week about the visit of China's President Hu Jintao to the United States. This is happening critical moment in the relationship between the United States and China, for a lot of reasons. (An important aside: All the photos on this page are mine, and protected under copyright. Please email me for reuse permission. Thanks!)

First, the trade imbalance with China. It apparently indicates that we're buying Chinese goods at a 5 to 1 rate over what we export to them. That's a lot of cash going in their direction. Things are not quite what they seem, though. China has recently, correctly argued that half the goods sold to the US are actually the result of FDI -- much of it from the United States. So some companies in the US are actually successfully using China's economy to sell US consumers goods at presumably better value. But the trade deficit is real.

Shanghai Park Peace

Second, China is marching towards full WTO membership. This means that its laws must be harmonized with WTO standards. Separate from a discussion about whether the WTO standards are good -- and even properly developed -- China has been taking stepwise movements towards harmonization that have been slower than what many Westerners would have liked.

Third, China uses up resources at an alarming rate, and they're using them up faster than ever. (Its economy grew at an annualized rate of 10 percent, according to the latest figures.)

OK, you know all this. But here's my take on each point.

1. Trade imbalance: This is an inevitable part of the Chinese-American economic dynamics and it will not disappear. Short-term fixes are just that. You can't make the dollar cheap enough to get currency parity.

China may wind up fully floating its currency (right now its exchange rate is tied to a basket of foreign currencies), but it will still have a billion people willing and able to work at wages we cannot compete with in the United States.

In fact, in some sectors, the trade balance will get worse. China has not been content to be merely a cheap manufacturing center. They've been pushing hard to do integrated products and I can tell you from my own experience that their ability to absorb management skills and develop markets and brands is stunning. They're positioning themselves to compete with fully developed Western economies on a full range of value-added product lines. Look for Lenovo to be offering more than computers in the next five years.

The new Shanghai skyline from the Starbucks roof

The consequence is that the issue is not the trade imbalance: it's what the trade imbalance portends. As global as US businesses are, it is not enough. And as worldly as US citizens might like to think we are, our culture is simply not prepared to deal with the social, economic and political consequences of China's emergence.

A friend who is a brilliant financial analyst and trader, Jason, laughed when I said to him on a recent trip to London that China is going to be a huge economic power in fifteen years, perhaps threatening US economic power. He countered that the size of the US economy was so huge, and it was so stable, that he doubted seriously that China would be so strong, relatively. Looking at the numbers, I think he's probably right that the US economy will still outstrip China's in that time-frame. But upon reflection, I think both he and I missed the point. The real tale will be told in the balance of economic power: China doesn't have to be equal in size to the US economically. It merely has to be powerful enough to change the buyer/seller relationship, currencies, money markets, and resource distribution. It's doing that already. And in an unstable world, such ongoing competition will amplify the effects we feel on commodity prices, fuel, labor pools ... it's a big deal!

Now, don't get me wrong. I love so much about China. I get to Asia whenever I can. The people there are impressively kind, ambitious, globally aware. Shanghai is breathtaking. And I love a lot about my own country. Separate from the love here, though, is the reality: Our trade imbalance is a symptom of much larger, economic issues that themselves inevitably will shift our world view.

New, old and upcoming Shanghaif

2. WTO accession.

My wife and I were in China one morning, walking through a park in Shanghai full of people exercising. Groups of people in big knots, couples, even people all by themselves, were doing t'ai chi.

It suddenly hit me that this is a precise metaphor for how China is integrating into the world. China apparently has learned not to rush into changes that can cause social, political or economic pain. They put down a foot in a new place, shift their weight until they're confident of the next move.

And we're not just talking about legal and regulatory reform. Recently, Energizer Holdings (the Energizer Bunny folks), recently won a case against two dozen companies, including seven based in China and Hong Kong, who had been producing mercury-free batteries and exporting them to the United States. Energizer holds the patent on mercury-free batteries, and wanted to negotiate with the infringing companies to make sure Energizer was compensated for its intellectual property. The ITC, which oversees these international trade appeals, was addressing a defense by the Chinese companies that the patent was invalid.

How does this square with the press coverage from China? Keep in mind that much of the Chinese press is heavily influenced by the government. Here's what you can read online from

"'We saw this technology as common knowledge, rather than an invention belonging to a single company. Just like everyone knows people need four wheels to build a car, but none of the auto manufacturers actually have to pay for that knowledge,' says an official with China Battery Industry Association who declined to be named." The China Battery Industry Association is part of the China National Council of Light Industry, in effect a quasi-governmental organization.

China Daily continues: "The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected an appeal on battery patents by Energizer Holdings Inc against the US International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC ruled in favour of nine battery makers from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong over one of Energizer's patents in the United States in June 2004."

Contrast this with a press release that just came out from Energizer:

"The Court’s January 25, 2006 ruling, and a subsequent mandate issued on March 20, 2006, reversed an earlier ITC opinion and directed the Commission to proceed in accordance with the Administrative Law Judge's prior ruling that the Energizer patent is valid," according to the release. (I got a copy of the release from Levick Strategic Communications, who is working with Energizer Holdings to promote their ITC win. LSC works with a company for which I do strategy consulting. You can find Energizer's release here.)

In essence, the Energizer patent is still in play and can create a justification for ITC to halt battery imports from infringing companies. (Some previously infringing Japanese companies have paid Energizer fees to let them continue to manufacture and export their batteries.)

Energizer, I am told, takes the position that the Chinese press and the China Battery Industry Association probably misunderstood the real impact of the ITC ruling.

That's certainly possible. But by promoting a false victory, China's official organs and unofficial press outlets have created a perception problem for a major US company that was just trying to play by international IP rules. And perception affects shareholders. So the issue goes beyond protecting Energizer's marketshare. It goes to Energizer's value to the stock market.

Energizer ultimately has little to worry about. It's a solid company with a long-term vision for a cooperative role in China.

But this example has two fine points: First, to protect your IP requires money enough to not only do battle in the international bodies and US courts; it requires money enough to battle the Chinese press, which is far less independent than it should be, in my view. (It's getting better, we should acknowledge.) Energizer Holdings can afford this. But what about hundreds of thousands of other businesses engaged with China? Can they stand up to the looseness with which some Chinese companies respect IP law? Can they stand up to the press and the government-sponsored trade associations that (deliberately or not) protect infringing Chinese companies? It's a tough situation.

Shanghai Old and New

The second fine point is an irony. The Chinese companies that fought Energizer on the validity of its patent are themselves involved in submitting patent applications for their own technology. Why? China Daily again: "Nanfu Battery is the biggest battery manufacturer in China. Its profits had also been eroded by piracy."

I wonder if this fact represents an opportunity for Energizer, and for other global companies doing business in China. What if these companies allied with Chinese counterparts who were also suffering from piracy? After all, the ultimate problem is not China as a country. The ultimate problem is piracy.

Let's put a ribbon on the WTO/harmonization of laws point. We should cautiously optimistic about many of the announcements timed with the impending visit of the Chinese president. One report from China is that the government is setting up service centers in 50 cities focused on handling domestic complaints on the infringement of IP rights. The goal is to create in 2006 a "vertical IPR protection system from the central government to local governments at all levels." (, April 12, 2006). Looking deeper into this, we can see that the intention is to protect domestic companies from IP violations primarily, and secondarily to improve dialog and interaction with international players. (Click here to see more.)

This is not as self-centered as it sounds: Remember that a significant portion of China's exports come from companies receiving foreign direct investment (FDI), including from US-based companies. Thus, for example, this system should support any joint ventures between US companies and Chinese entities. And, in my view, it places the battle where it should be. This is a not a US vs China discussion. This is a rule of law vs piracy discussion.

The Secretary Gutierrez said it right this past March: "[A key element is] transparency and predictability in the rule of law. Businesspeople like to have predictability. It's OK that things are risky as long as we know what the environment is going to be. Business people take big risks, and business people invest a lot of capital. But what they want is to know what the rules are going to be five years from now or ten years from now, so that they understand how to play the game."

The reason for caution, however, is that this plan will take three years to roll out. (Click here to see more.) The message to the West might appear to be: We're taking IP seriously. The message to their own companies might appear to be: You've got three years to clean up your act, so in the meantime, have at it. In short, China's government may be creating a climate that encourages its domestic companies to reform slowly.

3. Finally, as for China's increasing use of natural resources: I say, we must be vigilant against hypocrisy. The United States is by far the hungriest of countries. We need a global commitment to better management of our resources, and severe sticks combined with enticing carrots to get corporate and consumer behavior to line up around our environmental and strategic needs. Unfortunately for US conservatives who hate big government, we are far past the point when pure market options will deliver for us. Of course, we must be clever about creating market-driven options (some of which were rejected by the current administration right after they came to power). They will help. But for the sake of our country and the world, we all must dig in, now, to slow down our rapacious appetite for raw materials, to manage them better, and to make our planet fit for future generations.

I gave a talk to a bunch of bright Cornell students last summer on the nature of social networks, the Web and how that is changing our culture. When I was growing up, I said, I knew one Chinese woman, whose family had moved to my little town in Virginia. I certainly didn't correspond with any Chinese people. I asked the students, "How many of you know someone from China?" More than three-quarters of the students raised their hands. Then I asked, "How many of you regularly communicate with someone currently IN China?"

About half the students raised their hands.

It's a new, connected world. It won't look like the world those of us over 40 grew up in. It's not just a global economy, it's a global consciousness, a global network. And I, for one, think that this network will more easily tolerate trade imbalances than they will accept poisoned air, famine, and depletion of irreplaceable natural resources.

I think the moment I spent with my wife in the park in Shanghai in which the T'ai Chi model of Chinese progress occurred to me has given me a new insight into Western ways. The Washington Consensus embodied in organizations such as the WTO is all about running headlong towards free trade and open markets. In that park, filled with ponds and curved pathways, trees, bushes, flowers and a merry-go-round, surrounded by gleaming modern office buildings and red construction cranes, I didn't see any runners. China may appear in some ways to be embracing free trade and open markets, but they're not racing to be just like the West. They have a more measured plan.

This should perhaps inspire us all to have a better, measured plan, created by all our key trading partners: Let's build a world we'd want to leave to our children. Rule of law matters, but not just for aiding free trade. It's a matter of fairness. And we're being unfair to future generations if we blindly pursue growth.

Let us not criticize China for its resource hunger. Let us all take the blame and find the solution together.


Making the case for going global

Making the Global Business Case

Getting organized for going global is challenging for most businesses, but it's becoming more and more necessary. After all, as soon as you have a website, you have a global audience. Every piece of information you reveal potentially becomes competitive intelligence, and changes the conversation in the marketplace about what's desirable. In short, other companies and markets are watching.

I just published a peer reviewed article on making business cases for going global in the Journal for Association Leadership, a publication of the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE). I incorporate both risk and perceived value into a new formulation of RAROC (risk-adjusted return on capital). If you'd like a copy, drop me a line.


New article on CRM Today

Paul's online journal articles

I was just in Paris a few weeks ago meeting up with colleagues from Demos (France's top training firm), HEC (the top business school in France), Total (the top petroleum company in France), as well as friends from TRIUM (

A highlight was interviewing Jerome Guilbert, head of strategy for EuroRSCG.

Here's part one of the article:

and here's part two:



Global CRM

Global CRM

Now that I've posted my bio, it's time to really start the commentary. I've also published this as a comment on my bio, a ridiculous place to have published it. This is a good sign that online publishing is something that should be left to professionals!

OK ... let's dig in.

I've been putting a lot of comments on my old blog, which I've now taken down. I may pull out some of that material for here, but in the meantime, the big question I want to tackle is how the "new economy" (read: new information flow controlled by consumers) is changing the way business is run.

My friend Scott told me today that Time magazine's print edition starts off with a list of its online resources at (I don't read TIME, since I get most of my news off the Web, or from other magazines such as The Economist, Forbes, and various IT/supply chain/market research publications.)

This is a major acknowledgment that the Internet is affecting how people get information -- and that TIME is embracing the change. The monetizing model isn't promising at this moment for online news though: People generally won't pay for online content (although the trend is improving there), and ad revenues from online news sites are just a fraction of publication income.

Will that model change, so that publications can stay in business? I hope so. We need an independent, investigative press. To support this, they need to make money -- with no strings attached.

The challenge is obvious: How do publications prove their value? How do they use this value to continue an independent, investigative capacity?

The irony is that a free press is not a freebie.


Global CRM

Global CRM
I mentioned here how TIME magazine is pushing its web content -- a sure sign that the Internet is forcing changes on the news industry that will fundamentally affect its business model.

Another example that might pique your interest: With brands being built bottom-up based on a person's interactions with the company, the top-down branding process has changed forever. This is having an impact on the big advertising agencies and how they do business. But the problem for ad agencies isn't just that they have to change; they also have to change their clients' expectations of what an ad agency can do.

For more info, Google my name, CRM2Day and Guilbert.



Paul Ward’s role as strategy advisor to corporate and non-profit executives brings his business management and Web services consulting to clients internationally and across the United States.

He is currently developing business and serving clients in Russia, China, France, the UK and Malaysia, as well as in the United States and Mexico. As author of key strategic methodologies that link operations, finance and marketing, he takes seriously the pursuit of best practices backed up by experience and research. Paul lectures and writes regular columns on branding, marketing and strategy, with recent articles appearing on global marketing and financial strategies for globalizing companies. He is a recognized authority on Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Perceived Customer Value (PCV) and is doing research on the intersection between Customer Experience Management (CEM) and branding.

Recent clients include governance-service provider Axentis, the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) Corporate Directors Institute, the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineers, the Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP), the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), the Association for Competitive Technology and CyVeillance. He is a global guru for the Greater China CRM forum and is on the editorial board of CRM Today magazine. He is currently working with Greater China CRM to train global leaders in customer experience management (CEM), working in Hong Kong, San Francisco and London, with upcoming sessions in Europe and Asia.

Paul is a member of the American Society of Association Executives and is a managing member of ASAE’s International Section Council. He is also a member of the World Affairs Council. He is a 2006 graduate of the global executive MBA program TRIUM, a joint degree program conferred by the London School of Economics, the HEC School of Management — Paris and NYU Stern School of Business. TRIUM was recently ranked by the Financial Times of London as the fourth best global executive MBA program.

Paul is the Vice President of Sponsorship for the Customer Relationship Management Association of America and is co-director of the Washington DC chapter of the HEC-Paris alumni association. He loves biking, traveling, cooking, writing and reading, all of which he joyfully shares with his wife Angela.

[If you are interested in learning more about TRIUM, the global executive MBA program I've completed, you can check out their site at the link near the top of the GlobalCRM blog home page. Click here to read my open letter to executives checking out TRIUM at MBA fairs.]

Page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12