Here we go again...biggest, largest, tallest for Dubai.
Didn't take long did it.
This time it's the replacement Hard Rock Cafe, to be opened at Festival City.
The original Dubai Hard Rock Cafe in Media City closed about eighteen months ago. The new one we're told will have the largest Hard Rock Shop in the world in the largest Hard Rock Cafe outside North America and outside it will have the tallest ornamental guitar in the world at a height of 118 feet.
Just what we need.
Gulf News has the report here.
Showing posts with label brand dubai. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brand dubai. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Here we go again!
I've complained more than a few times in posts here about unbalanced over-the-top media stories about Dubai, both pro and anti.
A few years ago it was all 'The Miracle of Dubai' stuff. That was from journos flown in for a couple of days, put up in 5-star hotels, whisked around from one 5-star facility to another.
They returned the favour by hyperventilating about the place, with way over-the-top and often ludicrous articles.
It inevitably attracted an equally unbalanced reaction, the 'Dark Side of Dubai' stories, all about slave labour, chain gangs, fleeing expats and the city being reclaimed by the desert.
Now we've gone full circle with a new story in the UK Daily Telegraph from the 'Miracle of Dubai' folder.
Here's a sample:
What to do this morning? Hmmm. Let's head for the slopes and a black ski run and some tobogganing. Always an exciting, bracing way to start the day.
This afternoon? Shopping at the world's finest stores or a spot of sun-bathing and a swim with dolphins? Spoilt for choice.
Later on, some quad-bike racing and a 4x4 safari through scorching sand dunes stretching into the mists of time. Sounds good.
And what better way to end the perfect day than a candle-lit river cruise with as much wine as you can drink to compliment a gastronomic five-course feast after flying a sea-plane past the world's tallest building.
Unless, of course, you fancy a romantic, balmy, moonlit early hours walk along your private beachfront, dipping your toes in the Gulf of Arabia.
And there's the clue. Because where else in the world could you be but... Dubai.
And if you should ever see the slogan: "See Dubai Before You Die"...
Groan...
Stand by for the reaction pieces.
Read it and cringe.
A few years ago it was all 'The Miracle of Dubai' stuff. That was from journos flown in for a couple of days, put up in 5-star hotels, whisked around from one 5-star facility to another.
They returned the favour by hyperventilating about the place, with way over-the-top and often ludicrous articles.
It inevitably attracted an equally unbalanced reaction, the 'Dark Side of Dubai' stories, all about slave labour, chain gangs, fleeing expats and the city being reclaimed by the desert.
Now we've gone full circle with a new story in the UK Daily Telegraph from the 'Miracle of Dubai' folder.
Here's a sample:
What to do this morning? Hmmm. Let's head for the slopes and a black ski run and some tobogganing. Always an exciting, bracing way to start the day.
This afternoon? Shopping at the world's finest stores or a spot of sun-bathing and a swim with dolphins? Spoilt for choice.
Later on, some quad-bike racing and a 4x4 safari through scorching sand dunes stretching into the mists of time. Sounds good.
And what better way to end the perfect day than a candle-lit river cruise with as much wine as you can drink to compliment a gastronomic five-course feast after flying a sea-plane past the world's tallest building.
Unless, of course, you fancy a romantic, balmy, moonlit early hours walk along your private beachfront, dipping your toes in the Gulf of Arabia.
And there's the clue. Because where else in the world could you be but... Dubai.
And if you should ever see the slogan: "See Dubai Before You Die"...
Groan...
Stand by for the reaction pieces.
Read it and cringe.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Ignorance about Dubai
With all the publicity that Dubai's had internationally over recent years it astonishes me that there's still a huge lack of basic knowledge about the place.
While a few people, to their credit, are trying to get the facts by asking questions on forums, the questions reveal this lack of basic knowledge.
On various forums in recent weeks I've seen, for example, questions about which areas tourists to Dubai should avoid because they're unsafe, about whether women can go out on their own, about whether women can drive.
The ignorance about Dubai shows up in some of the answers too. Inevitably there are replies from people with no knowledge, who make no effort to get any. The internet is full of them.
I've seen adamant statements that women can't drive in Dubai, are spat on if they go out on their own, that bikinis can't be worn anywhere including the beach, that it's a place to be avoided at all costs. Spoken with great authority but total ignorance.
One of the very basic misunderstandings seems to be where Dubai actually is. It shows up regularly in the questions. I'd have thought it was pretty clear after all the exposure, but obviously not.
It's just come up yet again on what I think is one of the best forums, Expat Forum, with a question asking whether it's difficult being a single American woman living and working and Dubai.
The reason for the question is explained: " I've just seen a few things that make it seem like you'll need a male co worker with you at all times during meetings."
As some replies pointed out, Dubai is in the UAE not Saudi Arabia.
After all the exposure Dubai's had, people still don't even know which country it's in, whether it's a country in its own right, or perhaps even if there are different countries making up the Gulf region and if they might have different societies.
There's still a lot of work to be done by Brand Dubai.
While a few people, to their credit, are trying to get the facts by asking questions on forums, the questions reveal this lack of basic knowledge.
On various forums in recent weeks I've seen, for example, questions about which areas tourists to Dubai should avoid because they're unsafe, about whether women can go out on their own, about whether women can drive.
The ignorance about Dubai shows up in some of the answers too. Inevitably there are replies from people with no knowledge, who make no effort to get any. The internet is full of them.
I've seen adamant statements that women can't drive in Dubai, are spat on if they go out on their own, that bikinis can't be worn anywhere including the beach, that it's a place to be avoided at all costs. Spoken with great authority but total ignorance.
One of the very basic misunderstandings seems to be where Dubai actually is. It shows up regularly in the questions. I'd have thought it was pretty clear after all the exposure, but obviously not.
It's just come up yet again on what I think is one of the best forums, Expat Forum, with a question asking whether it's difficult being a single American woman living and working and Dubai.
The reason for the question is explained: " I've just seen a few things that make it seem like you'll need a male co worker with you at all times during meetings."
As some replies pointed out, Dubai is in the UAE not Saudi Arabia.
After all the exposure Dubai's had, people still don't even know which country it's in, whether it's a country in its own right, or perhaps even if there are different countries making up the Gulf region and if they might have different societies.
There's still a lot of work to be done by Brand Dubai.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Tourists and medication
Dubai's authorities have scored many own goals over the past five or six years, actions which have helped to create the climate for what's been called 'Dubai bashing'.
Some of it has been nothing more than Dubai bashing. Often, exposure of serious shortcomings has been mixed up with untrue and hugely exaggerated stories and rumours. Some have simply been absolute rubbish, presenting rumours and dinner party gossip as facts.
But some have been true and fully justified, many of them caused by inexplicable laws or the way the laws have been administered.
One in that category has been the detention of people for carrying medication prescribed by their doctor.
There haven't been reports of this happening for a while, perhaps explained by a piece in Gulf News:
"Passengers who fail to present prescriptions for certain listed medications will not be detained at Dubai International Airport, Dubai Police said.
Dubai Police Deputy Chief Major General Khamis Mattar Al Mazeina said: "There are no detention cells for passengers carrying listed medications by the Health Ministry without prescriptions.
"We keep the medications with us until the person presents a prescription from the doctor who prescribed it."
I assume that, realising the damage to Dubai's reputation that was being done by over-zealous interpretation, someone on high has had words with the officials involved.
It's a move in the right direction but it needs to go further of course.
Dubai aggressively promotes tourism in many countries, as does Emirates Airline, but there's no information to help potential visitors stay within the laws.
So many of us have said it so many times - information needs to be given to travellers before they begin their journey.
It's not hard to give a list of banned medication, such as codeine. And to list medication which requires a prescription from the prescribing doctor, to advise travellers to keep all medication in its original packaging.
Simple, and it would avoid all the problems.
From the police statement it seems any listed medications are confiscated, which is far from good for the patient who relies on it.
And if they're only here for a few days, I wonder whether they're allowed to leave the country before the original prescription arrives.
The Gulf News report is here.
Some of it has been nothing more than Dubai bashing. Often, exposure of serious shortcomings has been mixed up with untrue and hugely exaggerated stories and rumours. Some have simply been absolute rubbish, presenting rumours and dinner party gossip as facts.
But some have been true and fully justified, many of them caused by inexplicable laws or the way the laws have been administered.
One in that category has been the detention of people for carrying medication prescribed by their doctor.
There haven't been reports of this happening for a while, perhaps explained by a piece in Gulf News:
"Passengers who fail to present prescriptions for certain listed medications will not be detained at Dubai International Airport, Dubai Police said.
Dubai Police Deputy Chief Major General Khamis Mattar Al Mazeina said: "There are no detention cells for passengers carrying listed medications by the Health Ministry without prescriptions.
"We keep the medications with us until the person presents a prescription from the doctor who prescribed it."
I assume that, realising the damage to Dubai's reputation that was being done by over-zealous interpretation, someone on high has had words with the officials involved.
It's a move in the right direction but it needs to go further of course.
Dubai aggressively promotes tourism in many countries, as does Emirates Airline, but there's no information to help potential visitors stay within the laws.
So many of us have said it so many times - information needs to be given to travellers before they begin their journey.
It's not hard to give a list of banned medication, such as codeine. And to list medication which requires a prescription from the prescribing doctor, to advise travellers to keep all medication in its original packaging.
Simple, and it would avoid all the problems.
From the police statement it seems any listed medications are confiscated, which is far from good for the patient who relies on it.
And if they're only here for a few days, I wonder whether they're allowed to leave the country before the original prescription arrives.
The Gulf News report is here.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Let's be clear about this...
The theme of expats falling foul of the laws rumbles on with a opinion piece by Sultan Al Qassemi in The National today. In my opinion it's one of the most sensible columns on the subject so far.
Sultan mentions some recent cases that have hit the world's media, including the text messaging case, the Bob's Diner kissing case, the beach sex case and the alleged rape in a five star hotel. I've posted about them previously but it's worth looking at them briefly here because they're actually quite different from each other.
Sex on a beach, or anywhere in public, isn't going to be tolerated in any country, so that falls outside the debate about what's acceptable in Dubai.
The alleged rape case was a mixture - the stories said that a woman's report of being raped was ignored and instead she was charged with illicit sex with her fiance. In fact she wasn't ignored and when CCTV footage proved she had not been raped she admitted that she couldn't remember the evening and withdrew the complaint. It is true that she and her fiance were charged with illicit sex.
The text messaging case certainly is about what's acceptable in Dubai and how things are dealt with. I posted about it here.
The kissing case was also about what's acceptable here - and also about the justice system, which I posted about here.
Sultan's column includes four extremely important points.
One, the ambiguity surrounding the whole question of what is and is not acceptable. The column is headed "Nothing should be ambiguous about what’s indecent"
Two, the country needs to decide what it wants to be.
Three, there is a vacuum of information regarding what is and isn’t officially acceptable.
Four, the inconsistency of court sentences.
That's something I've posted about several times, a minor misdemeanor attracting a longer jail term than a serious offence. As Sultan points out, a kiss is not a hazard to others' lives, as drunk driving is. He asks how both can be punishable by a jail sentence.
I would add another point - enforcement. If you have rules and laws you must enforce them, not routinely allow people to ignore them as happens here on a daily basis.
Looking at these important points, ambiguity and the resulting confusion is a real problem.
Comments left on my posts on the subject invariably include 'when in Rome do as the Romans do', accepting that a country has the right to to its own laws but expressing confusion about what is and is not acceptable.
Innocent public displays of affection are an offence yet prostitutes operate openly on the streets of Deira and Bur Dubai, in hotels and even in malls.
There is a dress code yet the malls are full of men in football shorts & singlets and women in revealing clothing.
Alcohol is legally available, the Friday drunken brunches are legendary, yet you can be jailed for drinking alcohol.
No wonder there's both confusion and criticism.
All of this has to be sorted out and Sultan's most important point in my opinion is that the country has to decide what it wants to be. Not just to clarify the situation for expats and visitors but, more importantly, for Emiratis.
As he says, "It is no longer possible to expect that these issues will sort themselves through a policy of ambiguity".
He wants Emiratis brought into the conversation as stakeholders in the future and shape of their country. He says, ideally this is the role of the Federal National Council because it should be the voice of the citizens.
He also wants more media involvement: "the local fourth estate can play the role of the parliament by debating what citizens deem acceptable".
That's critical. Decide what you want to be, then within that framework write the laws.
But they must be consistent and hypocrisy must be removed from the equation.
To tell people that holding hands is indecent while turning a blind eye to prostitution simply won't do. To jail people for 'planning a sin' because sex outside marriage is illegal but allowing thousands of unmarried couples to share hotel rooms won't do.
These inconsistencies in what's said and what actually happens 'won't do' not just for foreigners but also for Emiratis. Surely they want consistent laws and enforcement of them as much as, probably more than, foreigners do.
By all means have laws that reflect the country's culture, and expect people to obey them, but there has to be consistency. If not, there is confusion, there are charges of hypocrisy, there is cynicism.
As for the vacuum of information, that's simple.
When the laws and rules are clearly written it's the simplest thing in the world to distribute them to travel agents, tour operators, airlines and to give a leaflet to everyone passing through an Immigration desk.
I think this is an important column by Sultan and I hope it generates urgent debate that results in the ambiguity and increasing confusion being resolved. You can read it here.
Just In
As I was typing this an e-mail came in from a friend on a related subject so I thought I'd add it.
It's about ambiguity, confusion, statements and rethinks, and 'clarifications'.
According to Arabian Business, Dubai Municipality has issued a letter stating that the use of alcohol in the preparation and cooking of food, and the display and sale of food containing alcohol is 'strictly prohibited'.
Not surprisingly it caused mass confusion in the industry leading to officials to rethink the ban. They are now set to issue revised restrictions on Tuesday, sources said.
If it happened once it would be funny but it's become the standard way of doing things.
Here, read it for yourself, I'm tired...
Here it is.
Sultan mentions some recent cases that have hit the world's media, including the text messaging case, the Bob's Diner kissing case, the beach sex case and the alleged rape in a five star hotel. I've posted about them previously but it's worth looking at them briefly here because they're actually quite different from each other.
Sex on a beach, or anywhere in public, isn't going to be tolerated in any country, so that falls outside the debate about what's acceptable in Dubai.
The alleged rape case was a mixture - the stories said that a woman's report of being raped was ignored and instead she was charged with illicit sex with her fiance. In fact she wasn't ignored and when CCTV footage proved she had not been raped she admitted that she couldn't remember the evening and withdrew the complaint. It is true that she and her fiance were charged with illicit sex.
The text messaging case certainly is about what's acceptable in Dubai and how things are dealt with. I posted about it here.
The kissing case was also about what's acceptable here - and also about the justice system, which I posted about here.
Sultan's column includes four extremely important points.
One, the ambiguity surrounding the whole question of what is and is not acceptable. The column is headed "Nothing should be ambiguous about what’s indecent"
Two, the country needs to decide what it wants to be.
Three, there is a vacuum of information regarding what is and isn’t officially acceptable.
Four, the inconsistency of court sentences.
That's something I've posted about several times, a minor misdemeanor attracting a longer jail term than a serious offence. As Sultan points out, a kiss is not a hazard to others' lives, as drunk driving is. He asks how both can be punishable by a jail sentence.
I would add another point - enforcement. If you have rules and laws you must enforce them, not routinely allow people to ignore them as happens here on a daily basis.
Looking at these important points, ambiguity and the resulting confusion is a real problem.
Comments left on my posts on the subject invariably include 'when in Rome do as the Romans do', accepting that a country has the right to to its own laws but expressing confusion about what is and is not acceptable.
Innocent public displays of affection are an offence yet prostitutes operate openly on the streets of Deira and Bur Dubai, in hotels and even in malls.
There is a dress code yet the malls are full of men in football shorts & singlets and women in revealing clothing.
Alcohol is legally available, the Friday drunken brunches are legendary, yet you can be jailed for drinking alcohol.
No wonder there's both confusion and criticism.
All of this has to be sorted out and Sultan's most important point in my opinion is that the country has to decide what it wants to be. Not just to clarify the situation for expats and visitors but, more importantly, for Emiratis.
As he says, "It is no longer possible to expect that these issues will sort themselves through a policy of ambiguity".
He wants Emiratis brought into the conversation as stakeholders in the future and shape of their country. He says, ideally this is the role of the Federal National Council because it should be the voice of the citizens.
He also wants more media involvement: "the local fourth estate can play the role of the parliament by debating what citizens deem acceptable".
That's critical. Decide what you want to be, then within that framework write the laws.
But they must be consistent and hypocrisy must be removed from the equation.
To tell people that holding hands is indecent while turning a blind eye to prostitution simply won't do. To jail people for 'planning a sin' because sex outside marriage is illegal but allowing thousands of unmarried couples to share hotel rooms won't do.
These inconsistencies in what's said and what actually happens 'won't do' not just for foreigners but also for Emiratis. Surely they want consistent laws and enforcement of them as much as, probably more than, foreigners do.
By all means have laws that reflect the country's culture, and expect people to obey them, but there has to be consistency. If not, there is confusion, there are charges of hypocrisy, there is cynicism.
As for the vacuum of information, that's simple.
When the laws and rules are clearly written it's the simplest thing in the world to distribute them to travel agents, tour operators, airlines and to give a leaflet to everyone passing through an Immigration desk.
I think this is an important column by Sultan and I hope it generates urgent debate that results in the ambiguity and increasing confusion being resolved. You can read it here.
Just In
As I was typing this an e-mail came in from a friend on a related subject so I thought I'd add it.
It's about ambiguity, confusion, statements and rethinks, and 'clarifications'.
According to Arabian Business, Dubai Municipality has issued a letter stating that the use of alcohol in the preparation and cooking of food, and the display and sale of food containing alcohol is 'strictly prohibited'.
Not surprisingly it caused mass confusion in the industry leading to officials to rethink the ban. They are now set to issue revised restrictions on Tuesday, sources said.
If it happened once it would be funny but it's become the standard way of doing things.
Here, read it for yourself, I'm tired...
Here it is.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Jail for 'planning to commit sin'
Dubai's in the news around the world again and it's on the subject of my recent posts, the laws and justice. Again.
This time the headline used most often is "Steamy text messages land couple in Dubai jail"
Text messages between the couple surfaced in a divorce lawsuit by the woman's estranged husband.
The court ruling said there was not enough evidence to determine whether the couple actually had an affair, but they were found guilty of 'planning to commit sin'.
Al Slammer for six months followed by deportation.
On appeal the sentence was reduced to three months and no deportation.
It's splashed all over the media all over the world - google it and you'll get thousands of websites.
And, of course, the story ends by reminding readers of previous cases.
Hoteliers here, already struggling with an oversupply of rooms and the worldwide recession, must be tearing their hair out.
This time the headline used most often is "Steamy text messages land couple in Dubai jail"
Text messages between the couple surfaced in a divorce lawsuit by the woman's estranged husband.
The court ruling said there was not enough evidence to determine whether the couple actually had an affair, but they were found guilty of 'planning to commit sin'.
Al Slammer for six months followed by deportation.
On appeal the sentence was reduced to three months and no deportation.
It's splashed all over the media all over the world - google it and you'll get thousands of websites.
And, of course, the story ends by reminding readers of previous cases.
Hoteliers here, already struggling with an oversupply of rooms and the worldwide recession, must be tearing their hair out.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Did 'Dubai' do it?
I've been reading some of the reports around the world about the leak at Dubai Aquarium.
They often add the the old property crash/debt crisis/Burj Khalifa lift problem stuff, so they become very negative about Dubai. And of course it encourages the real Dubai/Arab/Muslim bashers to jump in with their comments.
Here's a classic from the Huffington Post for example:
"Coool! Dubai is the farce of modern society. They have everything.... but it's built with our oil money ..... they are NOT a modern society... they are the oppose. People still get flogged for kissing in public, jailed for infidelity, and any other horrific thing you may hav heard about; men whip women on the beach in bikinis, spit on them...and that's just the tip of the sand dune."
Anyone in Dubai recognise the place from that?
But I did enjoy a couple of the other comments:
"It was probably caused by a stray bullet from the not-so-secret Mossad hit squad.
Boy! When things go wrong..."
And:
"Dubai has a lot of problems,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i.e. bankruptcy; closure of their new tower; this.
Is it possible that they themselves staged the hit on the Palestinian murderer to take attention away from its own problems?"
Anyway, that was really an aside, I distracted myself.
What I was going to post about was that while 'Dubai' is taking all the flak there's an important part of the story that isn't included.
'Dubai' didn't make the huge acrylic window, 'Dubai' didn't design the aquarium and 'Dubai' doesn't operate it.
The difference in reporting is interesting.
Buildings collapse in other cities but the stories aren't negative about the city itself.
Toyota has major problems and the negative stories are about Toyota. Not about 'Japan'.
But with the aquarium leak, and other stories about problems in Dubai, it's 'Dubai' itself which takes the hits. In fact, the aquarium problem must surely relate to either the designer and operator, Oceanis Australia Group, or to Emaar.
The viewing panel, which leaked, was commissioned under the supervision of Oceanis Australia Group. I can't find the name of the manufacturer, although there seem to be only three companies in the world capable of producing it. It's the world's largest acrylic panel, 32.8 meters wide, 8.3 metres high, 750 mm thick and weighs 245,614 kg.
When it was commissioned it was, according to Emaar's press release:
"...at the limit of production abilities by major acrylic manufacturers..."
It isn't in one piece though. If you stand at an angle to it you can see where the panels are joined. The panels are apparently fused with acrylic-soluble cement. From what I can gather from the stories it was a joint that was the problem, although the information is vague as usual and I could well be wrong.
I assume the panels were joined in the specialist factory, in Japan or wherever, which built it. Or could it be that the panels were joined here? That might be something that could be (but won't be) clarified by Emaar's PR people.
It would be good to hear from Oceanis Australia Group and from the manufacturer of the window about what happened and why.
I wonder if the PR people from the three organisations are talking to each other and getting factual information together that would stop the speculation...
Huffington Post story is here.
Emaar's original press release is here.
They often add the the old property crash/debt crisis/Burj Khalifa lift problem stuff, so they become very negative about Dubai. And of course it encourages the real Dubai/Arab/Muslim bashers to jump in with their comments.
Here's a classic from the Huffington Post for example:
"Coool! Dubai is the farce of modern society. They have everything.... but it's built with our oil money ..... they are NOT a modern society... they are the oppose. People still get flogged for kissing in public, jailed for infidelity, and any other horrific thing you may hav heard about; men whip women on the beach in bikinis, spit on them...and that's just the tip of the sand dune."
Anyone in Dubai recognise the place from that?
But I did enjoy a couple of the other comments:
"It was probably caused by a stray bullet from the not-so-secret Mossad hit squad.
Boy! When things go wrong..."
And:
"Dubai has a lot of problems,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i.e. bankruptcy; closure of their new tower; this.
Is it possible that they themselves staged the hit on the Palestinian murderer to take attention away from its own problems?"
Anyway, that was really an aside, I distracted myself.
What I was going to post about was that while 'Dubai' is taking all the flak there's an important part of the story that isn't included.
'Dubai' didn't make the huge acrylic window, 'Dubai' didn't design the aquarium and 'Dubai' doesn't operate it.
The difference in reporting is interesting.
Buildings collapse in other cities but the stories aren't negative about the city itself.
Toyota has major problems and the negative stories are about Toyota. Not about 'Japan'.
But with the aquarium leak, and other stories about problems in Dubai, it's 'Dubai' itself which takes the hits. In fact, the aquarium problem must surely relate to either the designer and operator, Oceanis Australia Group, or to Emaar.
The viewing panel, which leaked, was commissioned under the supervision of Oceanis Australia Group. I can't find the name of the manufacturer, although there seem to be only three companies in the world capable of producing it. It's the world's largest acrylic panel, 32.8 meters wide, 8.3 metres high, 750 mm thick and weighs 245,614 kg.
When it was commissioned it was, according to Emaar's press release:
"...at the limit of production abilities by major acrylic manufacturers..."
It isn't in one piece though. If you stand at an angle to it you can see where the panels are joined. The panels are apparently fused with acrylic-soluble cement. From what I can gather from the stories it was a joint that was the problem, although the information is vague as usual and I could well be wrong.
I assume the panels were joined in the specialist factory, in Japan or wherever, which built it. Or could it be that the panels were joined here? That might be something that could be (but won't be) clarified by Emaar's PR people.
It would be good to hear from Oceanis Australia Group and from the manufacturer of the window about what happened and why.
I wonder if the PR people from the three organisations are talking to each other and getting factual information together that would stop the speculation...
Huffington Post story is here.
Emaar's original press release is here.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Now Dubai Aquarium has a problem
Following closely on the malfunctioning lifts in Burj Khalifa creating bad international publicity for Brand Dubai we have another bad story.
The huge aquarium in Dubai Mall has sprung a leak, causing an area of about 100 shops to be cordoned off with people told to leave the area.
The Wall Street Journal heads the story "Leak at Dubai Mall Aquarium Forces Evacuation"
It notes that it's: "the latest mishap to hit one of Emaar's prestigious projects. The company was forced this month to close the viewing deck in the world's tallest building, Burj Khalifa, in the center of Dubai."
A visitor from the US is quoted as saying: "It seems that as they're building things here, they're crumbling at the same time."
And the head of Middle East research at UBS AG told the WSJ: "Emaar has always been known as a quality developer, but they've been under pressure to finish Dubai Mall and Burj Khalifa. I'm not surprised that they've had maintenance issues. They've definitely put into question their quality and are compromising their quality over volume."
The news wires have put the story out, it's starting to appear in the media all over the world and the reports use words like 'evacuation' and 'shark tank' to add to the drama.
The Chicago Tribune headlines the story "Dubai's latest blooper".
Even the usually restrained BBC runs the headline "Huge shark-filled aquarium in Dubai cracks open".
Apart from the more serious media I always like to check out what the tabloids are saying, because they have the most readers and so shape much more opinion, sadly.
Predictably, the UK tabloid The Sun screams: "Terror as mall shark tank cracks". It goes on to tell its several million readers: "Shoppers at the Dubai Mall fled in terror fearing that they about to be engulfed by 10 million gallons of water holding 33,000 sea creatures...Mall security men donned life jackets"
And inevitably, according to The Sun: ...anyone with photos of the drama were ordered by cops to delete them."
Too late, the paper has a photo of water gushing from the crack.
Naturally, most of the stories also refer back to the lift problem in Burj Khalifa and to Dubai's debt problems.
It's all doing huge damage to Dubai's reputation and it's becoming a PR man's nightmare.
The Wall Street Journal story is here.
The Chicago Tribune is here.
The BBC has the story here.
The Sun story is here.
The huge aquarium in Dubai Mall has sprung a leak, causing an area of about 100 shops to be cordoned off with people told to leave the area.
The Wall Street Journal heads the story "Leak at Dubai Mall Aquarium Forces Evacuation"
It notes that it's: "the latest mishap to hit one of Emaar's prestigious projects. The company was forced this month to close the viewing deck in the world's tallest building, Burj Khalifa, in the center of Dubai."
A visitor from the US is quoted as saying: "It seems that as they're building things here, they're crumbling at the same time."
And the head of Middle East research at UBS AG told the WSJ: "Emaar has always been known as a quality developer, but they've been under pressure to finish Dubai Mall and Burj Khalifa. I'm not surprised that they've had maintenance issues. They've definitely put into question their quality and are compromising their quality over volume."
The news wires have put the story out, it's starting to appear in the media all over the world and the reports use words like 'evacuation' and 'shark tank' to add to the drama.
The Chicago Tribune headlines the story "Dubai's latest blooper".
Even the usually restrained BBC runs the headline "Huge shark-filled aquarium in Dubai cracks open".
Apart from the more serious media I always like to check out what the tabloids are saying, because they have the most readers and so shape much more opinion, sadly.
Predictably, the UK tabloid The Sun screams: "Terror as mall shark tank cracks". It goes on to tell its several million readers: "Shoppers at the Dubai Mall fled in terror fearing that they about to be engulfed by 10 million gallons of water holding 33,000 sea creatures...Mall security men donned life jackets"
And inevitably, according to The Sun: ...anyone with photos of the drama were ordered by cops to delete them."
Too late, the paper has a photo of water gushing from the crack.
Naturally, most of the stories also refer back to the lift problem in Burj Khalifa and to Dubai's debt problems.
It's all doing huge damage to Dubai's reputation and it's becoming a PR man's nightmare.
The Wall Street Journal story is here.
The Chicago Tribune is here.
The BBC has the story here.
The Sun story is here.
Friday, February 12, 2010
The opulence of Dubai
In Deira the other day I thought of the image Brand Dubai has generated overseas.
A picture's been drawn of luxury, opulence, wealth, the biggest, the tallest...
Walk through Deira though and you see the Dubai that isn't publicised overseas. From the stories I'd guess that most visiting journalists never see it and don't even know it exists.
We don't all drive around in luxurious cars or 4x4s...
It's not all, and only, huge marble-tiled shopping malls...
It isn't all high-end designer label boutiques...
A picture's been drawn of luxury, opulence, wealth, the biggest, the tallest...
Walk through Deira though and you see the Dubai that isn't publicised overseas. From the stories I'd guess that most visiting journalists never see it and don't even know it exists.
We don't all drive around in luxurious cars or 4x4s...
It's not all, and only, huge marble-tiled shopping malls...
It isn't all high-end designer label boutiques...
We don't all live in super-luxury apartments or villas...
It's not all fancy jobs with huge expat salary packages, maids and gardeners...
It's a pity there's no balance in the stories.
It's not all fancy jobs with huge expat salary packages, maids and gardeners...
It's a pity there's no balance in the stories.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Handled the worst way - again
The official statement:
"Due to unexpected high traffic, the observation deck experience at the Burj Khalifa, At the Top, has been temporarily closed for maintenance and upgrade".
From a visitor:
"I was walking around the observation deck when I heard this really loud noise and what looked like smoke or dust coming out from one of the elevator doors. One of the elevators had not reached all the way to the 124th floor and I saw some people climbing a ladder from the elevator up on to the observation deck."
The story goes on with visitors' reports that around sixty people were trapped on the deck for over an hour until they were taken down by service elevator, that they were scared, angry, crying, that there was a lack of information
Absolutely typical. And absolutely the wrong way to handle issues.
It's not rocket science. First, tell the people involved what's happening. Quickly. It's not hard.
'There's a mechanical problem with an elevator. There is no danger and you will shortly be taken to the ground floor by the service elevator. While we're arranging that please continue to enjoy the view.'
Then tell the media what's happened. That's not hard either.
'There was a fault with an elevator, no-one was hurt and there was never any danger. All visitors were taken to the ground floor by service elevator. The deck will remain closed for one week, affected tickets will be refunded and there is no delay in handing over the rest of the building.' Take questions and answer them honestly.
But what's the normal way to handle a problem here?
The immediate reaction is 'can we deny it outright'?
If what's happened is too public to deny outright, make an excuse that dismisses the problem as routine or so minor as to not require comment. Under no circumstances do you say what actually happened. All senior people immediately go to ground.
Pointless. Wrong. Counter-productive. You've added hugely to the problem.
Because people who were affected reveal what really happened.
Senior people remain in hiding. The 'ignore it and it'll go away' strategy. But the damage is done and they're adding to it by their actions.
I've ranted about it many times in the past. It's not the problem that's the problem, the way you handle it is the problem. And here we have yet another repeat of the absolute worst way to handle a problem.
It's yet another blow for Brand Dubai too, because it's making news around the world. Bad news.
I've seen it in US, Australian, British, New Zealand, Indian papers already this morning.
The Huffington Post story, for example, includes:
Electrical problems are at least partly to blame for the closure of the Burj Khalifa's viewing platform – the only part of the half-mile high tower open yet. But a lack of information from the spire's owner left it unclear whether the rest of the largely empty building – including dozens of elevators meant to whisk visitors to the tower's more than 160 floors – was affected by the shutdown.
The indefinite closure, which began Sunday, comes as Dubai struggles to revive its international image as a cutting-edge Arab metropolis amid nagging questions about its financial health.
In a brief statement responding to questions, building owner Emaar Properties blamed the closure on "unexpected high traffic," but then suggested that electrical problems were also at fault.
Despite repeated requests, a spokeswoman for Emaar was unable to provide further details or rule out the possibility of foul play. Greg Sang, Emaar's director of projects and the man charged with coordinating the tower's construction, could not be reached.
The shutdown comes at a sensitive time for Dubai. The city-state is facing a slump in tourism – which accounts for nearly a fifth of the local economy – while fending off negative publicity caused by more than $80 billion in debt it is struggling to repay.
It goes on to say:
Questions were raised about the building's readiness in the months leading up to the January opening.
The opening date had originally been expected in September, but was then pushed back until sometime before the end of 2009. The eventual opening date just after New Year's was meant to coincide with the anniversary of the Dubai ruler's ascent to power.
There were signs even that target was ambitious. The final metal and glass panels cladding the building's exterior were installed only in late September. Early visitors to the observation deck had to peer through floor-to-ceiling windows caked with dust – a sign that cleaning crews had not yet had a chance to scrub them clean.
Today's story on what really happened is here.
The Huffington Post story.
A couple of previous examples of how not to handle a problem are here and here.
"Due to unexpected high traffic, the observation deck experience at the Burj Khalifa, At the Top, has been temporarily closed for maintenance and upgrade".
From a visitor:
"I was walking around the observation deck when I heard this really loud noise and what looked like smoke or dust coming out from one of the elevator doors. One of the elevators had not reached all the way to the 124th floor and I saw some people climbing a ladder from the elevator up on to the observation deck."
The story goes on with visitors' reports that around sixty people were trapped on the deck for over an hour until they were taken down by service elevator, that they were scared, angry, crying, that there was a lack of information
Absolutely typical. And absolutely the wrong way to handle issues.
It's not rocket science. First, tell the people involved what's happening. Quickly. It's not hard.
'There's a mechanical problem with an elevator. There is no danger and you will shortly be taken to the ground floor by the service elevator. While we're arranging that please continue to enjoy the view.'
Then tell the media what's happened. That's not hard either.
'There was a fault with an elevator, no-one was hurt and there was never any danger. All visitors were taken to the ground floor by service elevator. The deck will remain closed for one week, affected tickets will be refunded and there is no delay in handing over the rest of the building.' Take questions and answer them honestly.
But what's the normal way to handle a problem here?
The immediate reaction is 'can we deny it outright'?
If what's happened is too public to deny outright, make an excuse that dismisses the problem as routine or so minor as to not require comment. Under no circumstances do you say what actually happened. All senior people immediately go to ground.
Pointless. Wrong. Counter-productive. You've added hugely to the problem.
Because people who were affected reveal what really happened.
Senior people remain in hiding. The 'ignore it and it'll go away' strategy. But the damage is done and they're adding to it by their actions.
I've ranted about it many times in the past. It's not the problem that's the problem, the way you handle it is the problem. And here we have yet another repeat of the absolute worst way to handle a problem.
It's yet another blow for Brand Dubai too, because it's making news around the world. Bad news.
I've seen it in US, Australian, British, New Zealand, Indian papers already this morning.
The Huffington Post story, for example, includes:
Electrical problems are at least partly to blame for the closure of the Burj Khalifa's viewing platform – the only part of the half-mile high tower open yet. But a lack of information from the spire's owner left it unclear whether the rest of the largely empty building – including dozens of elevators meant to whisk visitors to the tower's more than 160 floors – was affected by the shutdown.
The indefinite closure, which began Sunday, comes as Dubai struggles to revive its international image as a cutting-edge Arab metropolis amid nagging questions about its financial health.
In a brief statement responding to questions, building owner Emaar Properties blamed the closure on "unexpected high traffic," but then suggested that electrical problems were also at fault.
Despite repeated requests, a spokeswoman for Emaar was unable to provide further details or rule out the possibility of foul play. Greg Sang, Emaar's director of projects and the man charged with coordinating the tower's construction, could not be reached.
The shutdown comes at a sensitive time for Dubai. The city-state is facing a slump in tourism – which accounts for nearly a fifth of the local economy – while fending off negative publicity caused by more than $80 billion in debt it is struggling to repay.
It goes on to say:
Questions were raised about the building's readiness in the months leading up to the January opening.
The opening date had originally been expected in September, but was then pushed back until sometime before the end of 2009. The eventual opening date just after New Year's was meant to coincide with the anniversary of the Dubai ruler's ascent to power.
There were signs even that target was ambitious. The final metal and glass panels cladding the building's exterior were installed only in late September. Early visitors to the observation deck had to peer through floor-to-ceiling windows caked with dust – a sign that cleaning crews had not yet had a chance to scrub them clean.
Today's story on what really happened is here.
The Huffington Post story.
A couple of previous examples of how not to handle a problem are here and here.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Burj Dubai Khalifa official opening
After the big firework/light display for the official opening we at last know the height of the world's tallest structure.
Photo: The National
It's 828 metres, a dramatic increase on the previous tallest building Taipei 101 which is 509.2 metres.
You get some idea of the size of the thing when you see it against other 'normal' skyscrapers...
Photo: Bloomberg. Sydney Morning Herald
It isn't just the height that strikes me but also the mass. Each of those sections at the bottom are the size of a 'normal' tower. It's an absolutely huge building.
Brand Dubai's suffered a loss though because the word Dubai has disappeared from the name. It's officially Burj Khalifa, named after the President of the UAE and Ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
Burj, by the way, is the Arabic word for tower.
The opening has been covered all over the world, naturally, and I've been glancing at comments left on blogs and forums.
Two particular areas, the renaming and the finance, are attracting the usual crowd of the uninformed.
On the renaming there are plenty of comments that it's payback for the Abu Dhabi loans to some Dubai World companies and that Abu Dhabi will now own the building.
The other area is that 'Dubai's bust' and can't afford the building.
There are several things these people don't understand. First, they don't understand that 'Dubai' doesn't own the building, and nor can 'Abu Dhabi'. They don't understand that the developer is Emaar, which is a very profitable company and nothing to do with Dubai World. They don't understand that the building was over 90% sold off-plan, that the individual investors own the building and that their money was used to fund the construction.
It's a fact of life that a complete lack of knowledge doesn't deter people from stridently stating an opinion, confidently expressed as fact but in reality far from it.
The renaming is actually more far reaching, especially for Brand Dubai, than just changing the nameplate on one building.
The city being built around the tower is Downtown Burj Dubai. Presumably that will now be Downtown Burj Khalifa. The Metro station is Burj Dubai Station, which presumably now has to be Burj Khalifa Station. The brand name Dubai has lost a lot of future publicity.
There are other areas which are affected too, such as contracts held by the thousand or so owners, which must say they own part of Burj Dubai and will therefore need to be changed to say Burj Khalifa.
Interesting times.
Reuters have a clip of the fireworks on YouTube, here.
Photo: The National
It's 828 metres, a dramatic increase on the previous tallest building Taipei 101 which is 509.2 metres.
You get some idea of the size of the thing when you see it against other 'normal' skyscrapers...
Photo: Bloomberg. Sydney Morning Herald
It isn't just the height that strikes me but also the mass. Each of those sections at the bottom are the size of a 'normal' tower. It's an absolutely huge building.
Brand Dubai's suffered a loss though because the word Dubai has disappeared from the name. It's officially Burj Khalifa, named after the President of the UAE and Ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
Burj, by the way, is the Arabic word for tower.
The opening has been covered all over the world, naturally, and I've been glancing at comments left on blogs and forums.
Two particular areas, the renaming and the finance, are attracting the usual crowd of the uninformed.
On the renaming there are plenty of comments that it's payback for the Abu Dhabi loans to some Dubai World companies and that Abu Dhabi will now own the building.
The other area is that 'Dubai's bust' and can't afford the building.
There are several things these people don't understand. First, they don't understand that 'Dubai' doesn't own the building, and nor can 'Abu Dhabi'. They don't understand that the developer is Emaar, which is a very profitable company and nothing to do with Dubai World. They don't understand that the building was over 90% sold off-plan, that the individual investors own the building and that their money was used to fund the construction.
It's a fact of life that a complete lack of knowledge doesn't deter people from stridently stating an opinion, confidently expressed as fact but in reality far from it.
The renaming is actually more far reaching, especially for Brand Dubai, than just changing the nameplate on one building.
The city being built around the tower is Downtown Burj Dubai. Presumably that will now be Downtown Burj Khalifa. The Metro station is Burj Dubai Station, which presumably now has to be Burj Khalifa Station. The brand name Dubai has lost a lot of future publicity.
There are other areas which are affected too, such as contracts held by the thousand or so owners, which must say they own part of Burj Dubai and will therefore need to be changed to say Burj Khalifa.
Interesting times.
Reuters have a clip of the fireworks on YouTube, here.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Catching up
The past couple of days have been spent with Dilip retrieving various file from my computer after the virus got in and stuffed it. He's getting the files out without bringing the virus with them.
So far so good, we've managed to find some of the e-mail stuff that I hadn't got around to backing-up so, for example, I've found some of the e-mail addresses I thought I'd lost. I'm gradually rebuilding the address book, and also putting sites back into Favourites. There's also softwear to re-install so it's all taking a lot of time.
That's delayed me following on from the Abu Dhabi rescue story, which I wanted to do a few days ago.
The rescue attracted the usual comments about AD grabbing Dubai's assets, such as Emirates, in return, but I don't subscribe to that theory.
Even in the unlikely event that it happened we wouldn't know about it anyway. It would be done quietly behind closed doors. But I don't think for one moment it will happen.
The only real long-shot is a merger between Emirates and Etihad to make a true national airline. But I don't even see that happening. They're both strong international brands which billions have gone into building and to compromise that would be a ridiculous business decision.
Another real long-shot would be an Al Nahyan on the board of Dubai World to make sure the restructuring is done to their satisfaction - but again I don't see it as a realistic possibility.
The deal was a straight commercial one, $10 billion over five years at 4% interest are the reports.
Additionally, AD doesn't need the money. They pump about 2.7 million barrels of oil a day which at about $7o a barrel is getting on for $70 billion a year. That makes the profits from companies such as Emirates, Dubal, Ducab, Jumeirah relatively trifling.
When people have enough money what want is power and that's what I think AD will want in return for helping the other emirates. Less independence for individual emirates with more federal (meaning Abu Dhabi) influence over events, laws, conduct.
So far so good, we've managed to find some of the e-mail stuff that I hadn't got around to backing-up so, for example, I've found some of the e-mail addresses I thought I'd lost. I'm gradually rebuilding the address book, and also putting sites back into Favourites. There's also softwear to re-install so it's all taking a lot of time.
That's delayed me following on from the Abu Dhabi rescue story, which I wanted to do a few days ago.
The rescue attracted the usual comments about AD grabbing Dubai's assets, such as Emirates, in return, but I don't subscribe to that theory.
Even in the unlikely event that it happened we wouldn't know about it anyway. It would be done quietly behind closed doors. But I don't think for one moment it will happen.
The only real long-shot is a merger between Emirates and Etihad to make a true national airline. But I don't even see that happening. They're both strong international brands which billions have gone into building and to compromise that would be a ridiculous business decision.
Another real long-shot would be an Al Nahyan on the board of Dubai World to make sure the restructuring is done to their satisfaction - but again I don't see it as a realistic possibility.
The deal was a straight commercial one, $10 billion over five years at 4% interest are the reports.
Additionally, AD doesn't need the money. They pump about 2.7 million barrels of oil a day which at about $7o a barrel is getting on for $70 billion a year. That makes the profits from companies such as Emirates, Dubal, Ducab, Jumeirah relatively trifling.
When people have enough money what want is power and that's what I think AD will want in return for helping the other emirates. Less independence for individual emirates with more federal (meaning Abu Dhabi) influence over events, laws, conduct.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Abu Dhabi in last minute rescue
Today is when the Nakheel $4.1 billion sukuk, or Islamic bond, is due for payment.
It's the big one. It's been the focus of much international attention since the global slump hit Dubai, attention which reached fever pitch about three weeks ago when Dubai's government said it was seeking a delay in payment of Dubai World companies' debts.
I posted about that here with links to some of the international reactions.
It had been assumed by investors and commentators that the debts of Dubai government related or owned companies were guaranteed by the government. And ultimately by oil-rich Abu Dhabi if necessary.
But both governments said that there had never been such a guarantee.
Abu Dhabi went further and said that they would 'pick and choose' which companies they supported.
Non payment would mean default, legal action to seize assets has been threatened, the whole Islamic bond industry was under a cloud...and today's the day.
A couple of hours ago the Emirates news agency WAM issued a statement from Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, in his capacity as Chairman of the Dubai Supreme Fiscal Committee.
"The Government of Abu Dhabi has agreed to fund $10 billion to the Dubai Financial Support Fund that will be used to satisfy a series of upcoming obligations on Dubai World.
As a first action for the new fund, the Government of Dubai has authorized $4.1 billion to be used to pay the sukuk obligations that are due today. The remaining funds would also provide for interest expenses and company working capital through April 30, 2010..."
Phew!
Brinkmanship.
By the way, BBC World Service news says that there are no conditions on the $10 billion.
Hmmmmm...
The announcement in full is here.
It's the big one. It's been the focus of much international attention since the global slump hit Dubai, attention which reached fever pitch about three weeks ago when Dubai's government said it was seeking a delay in payment of Dubai World companies' debts.
I posted about that here with links to some of the international reactions.
It had been assumed by investors and commentators that the debts of Dubai government related or owned companies were guaranteed by the government. And ultimately by oil-rich Abu Dhabi if necessary.
But both governments said that there had never been such a guarantee.
Abu Dhabi went further and said that they would 'pick and choose' which companies they supported.
Non payment would mean default, legal action to seize assets has been threatened, the whole Islamic bond industry was under a cloud...and today's the day.
A couple of hours ago the Emirates news agency WAM issued a statement from Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, in his capacity as Chairman of the Dubai Supreme Fiscal Committee.
"The Government of Abu Dhabi has agreed to fund $10 billion to the Dubai Financial Support Fund that will be used to satisfy a series of upcoming obligations on Dubai World.
As a first action for the new fund, the Government of Dubai has authorized $4.1 billion to be used to pay the sukuk obligations that are due today. The remaining funds would also provide for interest expenses and company working capital through April 30, 2010..."
Phew!
Brinkmanship.
By the way, BBC World Service news says that there are no conditions on the $10 billion.
Hmmmmm...
The announcement in full is here.
Friday, December 04, 2009
The real problem
"It's not the problem that's the problem, it's how you handle the problem that's the problem."
An old truism, which I've been preaching to colleagues and clients for as long as I can remember. I believe it's one of the most important rules in business.
An example. I worked for a hotel group and was in a restaurant of one of our hotels when a waiter slipped and tipped a drink over a customer.
The manageress immediately hurried over with a clean, dry cloth and gave it to the customer. She apologised, said his meal would be on the house, asked him to drop the suit off at Reception, it would be dry-cleaned at no cost and returned the next day.
In a few seconds a possible problem was replaced by a positive outcome. The customer would only remember the drink spilling in the context of how well the hotel had handled the incident. A plus for the brand.
The most important thing you have in business is the brand.
It's hard work to build the brand image and its positioning, to instil a good feeling about it in the mind of users and potential users.
But to damage or destroy it is the easiest thing in the world.
There's a fairly recent absolute classic of how quickly a brand can be destroyed, which gave rise to the phrase 'Doing a Ratner'.
Gerald Ratner was CEO of a successful family chain of discount jewellers in the UK. Discounted but believed to be good value for money. A good brand image.
Then he made a speech to the Institute of Directors, which was picked up by the media.
He said the brand's products could be sold at low prices because 'it's total crap' and he went on to say that some items were 'cheaper than a Marks & Spencer prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long'.
Damage to the brand? The share value fell by about half a billion pounds Sterling, the company almost collapsed. Share price had been at a high of 400 pence went as low as 9.5 pence, sales plummeted, investor dividends disappeared.
Gerald Ratner went but the damage was done. He'd been in charge for 25 years but destroyed it all in a few minutes.
I relate these stories because we currently have two examples of damage to a previously strong brand running in the media.
Very different stories but the difference demonstrates the truth of the saying and that it applies to any brand, whatever the business.
The subjects of course are Tiger Woods Brand and Brand Dubai.
Tiger Woods Brand is worth a huge amount of money, a large amount of its value based on a perception of perfection, unrealistic but that's what people tend to do.
After the row with Mrs Woods and subsequent minor car prang the damage to the brand began.
He hired a criminal attorney, refused to talk to the police and made no public statement.
The rumour mill went into overdrive, in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and those actions added to the rumours. I haven't heard any jokes but I'm sure there must be hundreds.
He stayed silent for several days, and by the time he eventually made a statement the damage was already done.
The problem was the way the problem was handled.
Dubai World, although a very different story, is a similar example of the real problem being the way the problem was handled, which has resulted in damage to the brand.
I've already posted about the mishandling.
Brand Dubai has been built for decades on the basis of being a great business centre, perfectly located and commercially astute. A city with a long and succesful commercial history, a place where it was safe to do business, where the business people really knew how to run successful companies. Brand Dubai meant successful, safe investing.
As a result of the mishandling of Dubai World's debt restructuring and how it was announced we're now seeing things like this said in the world's media about Dubai:
"Dubai default...Dubai debt meltdown...Dubai financial crisis...bloodbath...risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina...city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve...shock announcement that a debt-laden Dubai state corporation was unable to meet its interest bill...Dubai cast adrift as credibility crumbles...Dubai's financial health is under scrutiny"
OK, it was inaccurate, it was unnecessary blind panic, it was a misunderstanding of the status of Dubai World, it was lack of knowledge of how much debt was the subject of the announcement, of how much it was relative to the amount of debt in the world. But those reactions were caused by the mishandling of the situation in Dubai. Had the old saying been remembered the fallout would have been very different and without damage to Brand Dubai
If you are a potential investor, publicity like that will make you pause and rethink. If you are a financial institution you'll look much more carefully at Dubai companies requesting loans or offering bonds. There are plenty of other places around the world competing for your investment and loans.
However successful you are, however well you've built your brand, however long it's taken to build it to where it is today, make a mistake in handling a problem and you can damage it instantly. It can take years to regain the reputation and it can even end up as permanent damage.
An old truism, which I've been preaching to colleagues and clients for as long as I can remember. I believe it's one of the most important rules in business.
An example. I worked for a hotel group and was in a restaurant of one of our hotels when a waiter slipped and tipped a drink over a customer.
The manageress immediately hurried over with a clean, dry cloth and gave it to the customer. She apologised, said his meal would be on the house, asked him to drop the suit off at Reception, it would be dry-cleaned at no cost and returned the next day.
In a few seconds a possible problem was replaced by a positive outcome. The customer would only remember the drink spilling in the context of how well the hotel had handled the incident. A plus for the brand.
The most important thing you have in business is the brand.
It's hard work to build the brand image and its positioning, to instil a good feeling about it in the mind of users and potential users.
But to damage or destroy it is the easiest thing in the world.
There's a fairly recent absolute classic of how quickly a brand can be destroyed, which gave rise to the phrase 'Doing a Ratner'.
Gerald Ratner was CEO of a successful family chain of discount jewellers in the UK. Discounted but believed to be good value for money. A good brand image.
Then he made a speech to the Institute of Directors, which was picked up by the media.
He said the brand's products could be sold at low prices because 'it's total crap' and he went on to say that some items were 'cheaper than a Marks & Spencer prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long'.
Damage to the brand? The share value fell by about half a billion pounds Sterling, the company almost collapsed. Share price had been at a high of 400 pence went as low as 9.5 pence, sales plummeted, investor dividends disappeared.
Gerald Ratner went but the damage was done. He'd been in charge for 25 years but destroyed it all in a few minutes.
I relate these stories because we currently have two examples of damage to a previously strong brand running in the media.
Very different stories but the difference demonstrates the truth of the saying and that it applies to any brand, whatever the business.
The subjects of course are Tiger Woods Brand and Brand Dubai.
Tiger Woods Brand is worth a huge amount of money, a large amount of its value based on a perception of perfection, unrealistic but that's what people tend to do.
After the row with Mrs Woods and subsequent minor car prang the damage to the brand began.
He hired a criminal attorney, refused to talk to the police and made no public statement.
The rumour mill went into overdrive, in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and those actions added to the rumours. I haven't heard any jokes but I'm sure there must be hundreds.
He stayed silent for several days, and by the time he eventually made a statement the damage was already done.
The problem was the way the problem was handled.
Dubai World, although a very different story, is a similar example of the real problem being the way the problem was handled, which has resulted in damage to the brand.
I've already posted about the mishandling.
Brand Dubai has been built for decades on the basis of being a great business centre, perfectly located and commercially astute. A city with a long and succesful commercial history, a place where it was safe to do business, where the business people really knew how to run successful companies. Brand Dubai meant successful, safe investing.
As a result of the mishandling of Dubai World's debt restructuring and how it was announced we're now seeing things like this said in the world's media about Dubai:
"Dubai default...Dubai debt meltdown...Dubai financial crisis...bloodbath...risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina...city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve...shock announcement that a debt-laden Dubai state corporation was unable to meet its interest bill...Dubai cast adrift as credibility crumbles...Dubai's financial health is under scrutiny"
OK, it was inaccurate, it was unnecessary blind panic, it was a misunderstanding of the status of Dubai World, it was lack of knowledge of how much debt was the subject of the announcement, of how much it was relative to the amount of debt in the world. But those reactions were caused by the mishandling of the situation in Dubai. Had the old saying been remembered the fallout would have been very different and without damage to Brand Dubai
If you are a potential investor, publicity like that will make you pause and rethink. If you are a financial institution you'll look much more carefully at Dubai companies requesting loans or offering bonds. There are plenty of other places around the world competing for your investment and loans.
However successful you are, however well you've built your brand, however long it's taken to build it to where it is today, make a mistake in handling a problem and you can damage it instantly. It can take years to regain the reputation and it can even end up as permanent damage.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Shock at Dubai World announcement
The business world was expecting Nakheel to redeem its Islamic bond when it matures in two weeks.
Recent comments from Dubai government VIPs reinforced the expectation that debts would be paid on time.
So there's alarm in markets around the world since Dubai World briefly announced that it was asking creditors to defer payment for at least six months.
What a disastrous blow for Brand Dubai.
The bond has enormous significance because it's both the world's largest Islamic financial instrument and is considered the ultimate litmus test for Dubai's ability to meet its commitments.
Equally bad, the announcement was made after close of business on the eve of the Eid holiday, so now no-one's available for comment or clarification. That fact hasn't been missed by commentators either.
Badly, badly handled all round.
Commentators around the world are talking about it in disapproving terms and there's the question of whether this will be considered a default, with enormous implications for not only Dubai but Islamic bonds in general.
The New York Times says that the move demostrates that Abu Dhabi won't unconditionally bail out Dubai government controlled companies but that there has to be a genuine restructuring of the debt with the pain being equally shared by Dubai and its banks.
The Wall Street Journal talks about bankers and executives being stunned by the announcement, and says 'Dubai's efforts to deal with its mountain of debt estimated to exceed $80 billion were dealt a hammer blow.'
The Times, once one of the world's great newspapers but now reduced to near-tabloid level since being bought by Rupert Murdoch, predictably goes with the cliche 'Dubai World and properties built on sand.'
The UK Daily Telegraph headlines its report 'Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call' and says that 'the credit-crunched Gulf playground, has shattered hopes of imminent financial recovery.'
The Financial Times has the widest coverage and talks about markets reeling at the announcement and acting with alarm at fears of default. Comments from analysts confirm the reaction.
There's only one positive side to the announcement and predictably the local media puts that spin on it, that Dubai World is to be re-restructured and an outside world-renowned expert is being brought in as Chief Restructuring Officer. Gulf News print edition headline, for example, says 'Dubai World gets a breather'.
The trouble is that it's the right move but it's taken far too long for the move to be made.
For nearly a year the Dubai World companies have been going through a 'restructuring'. But it's always a nonsense for the management responsible for a company's troubles to be allowed to create and preside over a restructuring made necessary because of their own policies. A Chief Restructuring Officer, an outside expert with a proven track record, was needed from the beginning of the crisis to sort the mess out. But it wasn't treated with the urgency the situation demanded.
They became bloated companies with unnecessarily huge numbers of people being paid huge amounts of money, huge duplication of job functions between the companies in the group, unnecessary competition to build the biggest, tallest.
That led to too many mega-projects all going ahead at the same time. Worse, many were pushing engineering into uncharted waters but second and third versions were being pushed ahead before the engineers had worked out how to make the first one. The Palm Islands/The World are a classic example.
Heads, senior heads that is, should have rolled long ago.
Thankfully the financial crisis put a stop to the nonsense and has forced the companies to come down to earth. Restructuring was inevitable and long overdue. It is happening but it's all taken far too long.
We're a year into the crisis before the real moves are made that needed to be made there and then.
(The Tamweel/Amlak merger is another example. The property market is desperate for mortgage providers but the two largest have been in limbo for over a year without a policy decision being made to get them back into business. And we've been told that it won't happen until next year.)
To my mind this is the biggest blow to Brand Dubai that I can recall. The one that will do the most damage to Dubai's reputation as a good, safe place to do business, as a place that understands what business is all about and knows how to conduct it.
We'll undoubtedly be seeing more of the 'Dubai collapsing, reclaimed by the desert' stories from certain commentators as a result of this announcement.
Ignore them, Dubai will survive as the commercial centre that it's been for nearly two hundred years.
But this is a huge setback.
You can read some of the comments about it here:
NYT. Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments.
WSJ. Dubai Debt Woes Turn Ugly After It Seeks Standstill Deal
The Times. Dubai World and properties built on sand.
Daily Telegraph. Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call.
FT. Dubai shock after debt standstill call which also has links to related articles.
Recent comments from Dubai government VIPs reinforced the expectation that debts would be paid on time.
So there's alarm in markets around the world since Dubai World briefly announced that it was asking creditors to defer payment for at least six months.
What a disastrous blow for Brand Dubai.
The bond has enormous significance because it's both the world's largest Islamic financial instrument and is considered the ultimate litmus test for Dubai's ability to meet its commitments.
Equally bad, the announcement was made after close of business on the eve of the Eid holiday, so now no-one's available for comment or clarification. That fact hasn't been missed by commentators either.
Badly, badly handled all round.
Commentators around the world are talking about it in disapproving terms and there's the question of whether this will be considered a default, with enormous implications for not only Dubai but Islamic bonds in general.
The New York Times says that the move demostrates that Abu Dhabi won't unconditionally bail out Dubai government controlled companies but that there has to be a genuine restructuring of the debt with the pain being equally shared by Dubai and its banks.
The Wall Street Journal talks about bankers and executives being stunned by the announcement, and says 'Dubai's efforts to deal with its mountain of debt estimated to exceed $80 billion were dealt a hammer blow.'
The Times, once one of the world's great newspapers but now reduced to near-tabloid level since being bought by Rupert Murdoch, predictably goes with the cliche 'Dubai World and properties built on sand.'
The UK Daily Telegraph headlines its report 'Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call' and says that 'the credit-crunched Gulf playground, has shattered hopes of imminent financial recovery.'
The Financial Times has the widest coverage and talks about markets reeling at the announcement and acting with alarm at fears of default. Comments from analysts confirm the reaction.
There's only one positive side to the announcement and predictably the local media puts that spin on it, that Dubai World is to be re-restructured and an outside world-renowned expert is being brought in as Chief Restructuring Officer. Gulf News print edition headline, for example, says 'Dubai World gets a breather'.
The trouble is that it's the right move but it's taken far too long for the move to be made.
For nearly a year the Dubai World companies have been going through a 'restructuring'. But it's always a nonsense for the management responsible for a company's troubles to be allowed to create and preside over a restructuring made necessary because of their own policies. A Chief Restructuring Officer, an outside expert with a proven track record, was needed from the beginning of the crisis to sort the mess out. But it wasn't treated with the urgency the situation demanded.
They became bloated companies with unnecessarily huge numbers of people being paid huge amounts of money, huge duplication of job functions between the companies in the group, unnecessary competition to build the biggest, tallest.
That led to too many mega-projects all going ahead at the same time. Worse, many were pushing engineering into uncharted waters but second and third versions were being pushed ahead before the engineers had worked out how to make the first one. The Palm Islands/The World are a classic example.
Heads, senior heads that is, should have rolled long ago.
Thankfully the financial crisis put a stop to the nonsense and has forced the companies to come down to earth. Restructuring was inevitable and long overdue. It is happening but it's all taken far too long.
We're a year into the crisis before the real moves are made that needed to be made there and then.
(The Tamweel/Amlak merger is another example. The property market is desperate for mortgage providers but the two largest have been in limbo for over a year without a policy decision being made to get them back into business. And we've been told that it won't happen until next year.)
To my mind this is the biggest blow to Brand Dubai that I can recall. The one that will do the most damage to Dubai's reputation as a good, safe place to do business, as a place that understands what business is all about and knows how to conduct it.
We'll undoubtedly be seeing more of the 'Dubai collapsing, reclaimed by the desert' stories from certain commentators as a result of this announcement.
Ignore them, Dubai will survive as the commercial centre that it's been for nearly two hundred years.
But this is a huge setback.
You can read some of the comments about it here:
NYT. Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments.
WSJ. Dubai Debt Woes Turn Ugly After It Seeks Standstill Deal
The Times. Dubai World and properties built on sand.
Daily Telegraph. Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call.
FT. Dubai shock after debt standstill call which also has links to related articles.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Money wasted by lack of planning
Back in March/April there were several press reports of the billions owed to UK contractors by Dubai government-related companies, discussions at ministerial level etc.
Inevitably it isn't just UK companies owed money and The National has now reported that unsurprisingly Japanese builders are in the same position with billions owed to them.
I've made the point several times in the past that it's a disaster for Brand Dubai, for Dubai's reputation as a reliable place to do business, a threat to Dubai's commercial plans for the future, so I won't repeat myself.
But I will repeat myself about the huge wastage of money caused by a lack of planning. If so many billions weren't wasted there'd be more money available to pay bills.
Yesterday for the first time in a few months I drove onto Road 611 from Al Sufouh Road, over the interchange which crosses SZR.
611 is a new road, this section was finished not very long ago.
Now it looks like this:
A big section being dug up, diversions in place, a road junction being replaced by a flyover.
Population projections, tourist arrival projections, traffic density and projections were all available yet must have been ignored because what was obviously an inadequate road plan was created, approved and built.
Not only billions wasted but it causes unnecessary extra pollution, traffic jams, lost productivity and driver frustration.
All because not enough competent thought was given to planning.
And this is just one of many examples all over the city.
Japanese contractors owed billions by Dubai firms.
Inevitably it isn't just UK companies owed money and The National has now reported that unsurprisingly Japanese builders are in the same position with billions owed to them.
I've made the point several times in the past that it's a disaster for Brand Dubai, for Dubai's reputation as a reliable place to do business, a threat to Dubai's commercial plans for the future, so I won't repeat myself.
But I will repeat myself about the huge wastage of money caused by a lack of planning. If so many billions weren't wasted there'd be more money available to pay bills.
Yesterday for the first time in a few months I drove onto Road 611 from Al Sufouh Road, over the interchange which crosses SZR.
611 is a new road, this section was finished not very long ago.
Now it looks like this:
A big section being dug up, diversions in place, a road junction being replaced by a flyover.
Population projections, tourist arrival projections, traffic density and projections were all available yet must have been ignored because what was obviously an inadequate road plan was created, approved and built.
Not only billions wasted but it causes unnecessary extra pollution, traffic jams, lost productivity and driver frustration.
All because not enough competent thought was given to planning.
And this is just one of many examples all over the city.
Japanese contractors owed billions by Dubai firms.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Dubai's demise
Three things prompted this post, a conversation and two experiences.
The conversation was a visiting UK businessman saying the other evening that we in Dubai are unaware of the bad situation we're in. We're not exposed to the truth as presented by the press in the UK so we don't realise that the city's economy has collapsed.
Hmmm.
Firstly, we are of course fully aware of what the world's media says - we have access to it on the internet.
Secondly, while there's been a dramatic slowdow it's not the picture conjoured up by sections of the British press. You know the stories, tens of thousands of expats fleeing, schools emptying, a ghost town being reclaimed by the desert.
The two experiences were yesterday evening's peak time which gave us traffic gridlock on Sheikh Zayed Road, on Al Sufouh Road, in Knowledge Village.
Then walking the length of Dubai Marina I was struck by the huge amount of construction still going on. There's the constant noise of generators, machinery, hammering, shouting along the full length of the Marina.
An awful lot of companies are still doing an awful lot of business.
They jumped the gun with the obituaries.
The conversation was a visiting UK businessman saying the other evening that we in Dubai are unaware of the bad situation we're in. We're not exposed to the truth as presented by the press in the UK so we don't realise that the city's economy has collapsed.
Hmmm.
Firstly, we are of course fully aware of what the world's media says - we have access to it on the internet.
Secondly, while there's been a dramatic slowdow it's not the picture conjoured up by sections of the British press. You know the stories, tens of thousands of expats fleeing, schools emptying, a ghost town being reclaimed by the desert.
The two experiences were yesterday evening's peak time which gave us traffic gridlock on Sheikh Zayed Road, on Al Sufouh Road, in Knowledge Village.
Then walking the length of Dubai Marina I was struck by the huge amount of construction still going on. There's the constant noise of generators, machinery, hammering, shouting along the full length of the Marina.
An awful lot of companies are still doing an awful lot of business.
They jumped the gun with the obituaries.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Changes needed
There are stories in the papers today which caught my attention although they have no real connection other than that they contain things I really don't like and which really need changing.
Laws
The first is that two senior former Nakheel Australian executives have been charged after a corruption investigation. They were arrested when they were accused of attempting to bribe a public official.
I have no way of knowing the truth of the issue, and that isn't the point. My beef with it is that they've been in jail without charge since they were arrested in January.
Holding people in jail without charge and without a strict limit on the time they can be held is totally indefensible.
Whether it's at Guantanamo Bay, in a Dubai jail or anywhere else, it's simply unacceptable but we see it far too often here for all kinds of alleged offences.
The presumption of innocence until and unless proven guilty must be paramount. It really is an area of the law which needs urgent top-level attention.
Etisalat
Then there's the murky Etisalat spyware story. They sent BlackBerry users a patch to install to 'improve performance'. It caused all kinds of problems but the real story is that after investigation BlackBerry have said that "etisalat appears to have distributed a telecommunications surveillance application"
At least the media here is giving exposure to the scandal - I've seen prominent stories in 'Gulf News', 'The National' and 'Khaleej Times' - and so is the international media.
A statement says: "RIM confirms that this software is not a patch and it is not a RIM authorised upgrade. RIM did not develop this software application and RIM was not involved in any way in the testing, promotion or distribution of this software application."
I have two problems with the story, one obviously being the alleged spying on users.
The other is that Etisalat has not commented on RIM’s statement.
Typical of the attitude of companies here, 'we do what we want to do and we don't have to explain anything to anyone'.
So, as usual, with this scandal there's no transparency, no explanation, no information.
Who authorised distribution of the patch? Was it official policy or a rogue group? Where did the patch come from? How secure is the BlackBerry for use in the UAE?
This goes much further than inconveniencing individuals, it's another huge blow to Brand Dubai's reputation as an honest and safe place to do business. If companies have any doubts that their confidential commercial information is secure they'll stay away, and Dubai's future depends on them operating here.
The only way to give confidence to business is to have complete transparency. There needs to be an urgent statement that an immediate enquiry by an outside independent consultant is under way. Whatever the outcome the results must be published in full and responsible heads must publicly roll because this is either a monumental error or a deliberate spying campaign.
Sharjah
The last story is from Sharjah where young men are being detained by police for wearing jewellery which is then being confiscated.
Apparently there's an eight year old 'decency' law that says men are not allowed to wear bracelets or any fashion accessories in Sharjah malls.
I don't even begin to understand what that's all about but I'm not querying the law itself.
What I have a problem with is that it seems to be another of those vague, sweeping generalised laws which are open to interpretation depending on the whim and the mood of the official.
What exactly is a 'fashion accessory'? When does a watch become one, when it has diamonds on it? When does a wedding or signet ring become one, does it depend on size or weight or design? Is a man's tote bag a fashion accessory?
That obviously depends on the individual opinion of the officer.
And I wonder what happens to the confiscated jewellery.
The other infuriating thing was the statement by 'a senior CID official', something we've heard so many times before:
"Men are not allowed to wear such accessories. Everybody is aware of that."
Everybody is aware. Yeah, like we were all aware of the ID Card deadlines and the Salik system.
Enact a law in secret, shelve it for years, don't tell anyone anything but suddenly start punishing them for breaking it.
The National's Nakheel story.
Khaleej Times' BlackBerry story.
Gulf News' Sharjah story.
Laws
The first is that two senior former Nakheel Australian executives have been charged after a corruption investigation. They were arrested when they were accused of attempting to bribe a public official.
I have no way of knowing the truth of the issue, and that isn't the point. My beef with it is that they've been in jail without charge since they were arrested in January.
Holding people in jail without charge and without a strict limit on the time they can be held is totally indefensible.
Whether it's at Guantanamo Bay, in a Dubai jail or anywhere else, it's simply unacceptable but we see it far too often here for all kinds of alleged offences.
The presumption of innocence until and unless proven guilty must be paramount. It really is an area of the law which needs urgent top-level attention.
Etisalat
Then there's the murky Etisalat spyware story. They sent BlackBerry users a patch to install to 'improve performance'. It caused all kinds of problems but the real story is that after investigation BlackBerry have said that "etisalat appears to have distributed a telecommunications surveillance application"
At least the media here is giving exposure to the scandal - I've seen prominent stories in 'Gulf News', 'The National' and 'Khaleej Times' - and so is the international media.
A statement says: "RIM confirms that this software is not a patch and it is not a RIM authorised upgrade. RIM did not develop this software application and RIM was not involved in any way in the testing, promotion or distribution of this software application."
I have two problems with the story, one obviously being the alleged spying on users.
The other is that Etisalat has not commented on RIM’s statement.
Typical of the attitude of companies here, 'we do what we want to do and we don't have to explain anything to anyone'.
So, as usual, with this scandal there's no transparency, no explanation, no information.
Who authorised distribution of the patch? Was it official policy or a rogue group? Where did the patch come from? How secure is the BlackBerry for use in the UAE?
This goes much further than inconveniencing individuals, it's another huge blow to Brand Dubai's reputation as an honest and safe place to do business. If companies have any doubts that their confidential commercial information is secure they'll stay away, and Dubai's future depends on them operating here.
The only way to give confidence to business is to have complete transparency. There needs to be an urgent statement that an immediate enquiry by an outside independent consultant is under way. Whatever the outcome the results must be published in full and responsible heads must publicly roll because this is either a monumental error or a deliberate spying campaign.
Sharjah
The last story is from Sharjah where young men are being detained by police for wearing jewellery which is then being confiscated.
Apparently there's an eight year old 'decency' law that says men are not allowed to wear bracelets or any fashion accessories in Sharjah malls.
I don't even begin to understand what that's all about but I'm not querying the law itself.
What I have a problem with is that it seems to be another of those vague, sweeping generalised laws which are open to interpretation depending on the whim and the mood of the official.
What exactly is a 'fashion accessory'? When does a watch become one, when it has diamonds on it? When does a wedding or signet ring become one, does it depend on size or weight or design? Is a man's tote bag a fashion accessory?
That obviously depends on the individual opinion of the officer.
And I wonder what happens to the confiscated jewellery.
The other infuriating thing was the statement by 'a senior CID official', something we've heard so many times before:
"Men are not allowed to wear such accessories. Everybody is aware of that."
Everybody is aware. Yeah, like we were all aware of the ID Card deadlines and the Salik system.
Enact a law in secret, shelve it for years, don't tell anyone anything but suddenly start punishing them for breaking it.
The National's Nakheel story.
Khaleej Times' BlackBerry story.
Gulf News' Sharjah story.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Dubai bashing from the Sunday Times
There's yet another article following the fad for Dubai bashing, this one in the UK Sunday Times.
I'd missed it because we were flying back to Dubai during Saturday night, so thanks to Andy the Redundancy Porsche Man for the heads up.
Andy's featured in the article and having obviously given some assistance to Rod Liddle the author I should say in passing that I thought he was depicted somewhat ungraciously.
Once again it's an article concentrating solely about what's wrong, with no balance, but at least it isn't the sort of inaccurate and often patently untrue and sensationalist garbage we've seen from Johann Hari recently.
Even something that's contrary to my experience and with which I fundamentally disagree, I can't fault because the writer is honest in his statement because he says it's what people told him.
"...The British expats I spoke to believed, without exception, that the Emiratis are utterly useless, corrupt and indolent..."
Other less professional writers would have said "all British expats" while Rod Liddle specifically quotes the few Brits he spoke with. I have no reason to doubt that they said exactly as he reported, I've heard the same huge generalisation from a couple of Brits myself.
(Incidentally, those same Brits would be ropeable if they were all categorised in the same derogatory way, as Hari depicted British expats in 'The Dark Side of Dubai' )
In his note to me Andy describes the article as 'harsh' and you'll probably agree if you read it, here.
I'd missed it because we were flying back to Dubai during Saturday night, so thanks to Andy the Redundancy Porsche Man for the heads up.
Andy's featured in the article and having obviously given some assistance to Rod Liddle the author I should say in passing that I thought he was depicted somewhat ungraciously.
Once again it's an article concentrating solely about what's wrong, with no balance, but at least it isn't the sort of inaccurate and often patently untrue and sensationalist garbage we've seen from Johann Hari recently.
Even something that's contrary to my experience and with which I fundamentally disagree, I can't fault because the writer is honest in his statement because he says it's what people told him.
"...The British expats I spoke to believed, without exception, that the Emiratis are utterly useless, corrupt and indolent..."
Other less professional writers would have said "all British expats" while Rod Liddle specifically quotes the few Brits he spoke with. I have no reason to doubt that they said exactly as he reported, I've heard the same huge generalisation from a couple of Brits myself.
(Incidentally, those same Brits would be ropeable if they were all categorised in the same derogatory way, as Hari depicted British expats in 'The Dark Side of Dubai' )
In his note to me Andy describes the article as 'harsh' and you'll probably agree if you read it, here.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Dubai in the news again
The British press is like a dog with a bone over Dubai.
For several years there were the gushing 'miracle of Dubai' stories, recently replaced by the 'built on sand' stories.
Both types generally have the same basic problems, lack of context, lack of history, doubtful claims, incorrect information, and usually a complete lack of balance.
The latest was in The Times yesterday, headlined with the old cliche "Dubai's dream is built on sand".
Oh dear.
Over the years there seems to be only three headlines they can come up with 'The Miracle of Dubai', 'Built On Sand', 'Dubai's Dark Dream'.
Where did creativity go?
Anyway, this one starts with the same old problems, there's no history, as though Dubai suddenly appeared out of the desert in 2000. There's no context either and it talks about the place as though it's the only one hit by the economic crisis, the only one with a property slump and high debts.
All of this is something that requires the attention of the new Media Office for Brand Dubai by the way. Giving information, placing stories, about Dubai's history as a trading, commercial and retail centre from it's very beginnings.
An example of lack of context in this latest article is 'house prices are down by as much as 50%' without saying that relates to September's peak. As one of the comments points out, 'although property is down 50%, it is 100% more than in 2004'.
It also cherrypicks one prediction, that property prices will fall a further 20%. It chooses to ignore other predictions that prices have reached bottom.
But there's also good stuff too, such as the poor decision on the new property-related visa, about the apparent slowness to react to the crisis and in particular about the lack of transparency and communication. That's something government and business here is struggling to come to terms with, although I think there's evidence that things are improving.
It's really culture and tradition. Those in charge, whether of companies or government, have traditionally just made decisions and got on with it. No communication, no transparency because it wasn't needed, people just accepted that was the way things were done here.
When you think about it there've been huge changes in these areas in a very short period and although there's a long way to go we're generally moving in the right direction.
Unlike almost all the previous pieces on Dubai this latest one does bring in some balance in the second part and it includes a range of opinions.
As always I like to read the comments, and again there's some balance from the 26 currently on the website as I write this, including as usual comments from the extremes.
The article is here.
For several years there were the gushing 'miracle of Dubai' stories, recently replaced by the 'built on sand' stories.
Both types generally have the same basic problems, lack of context, lack of history, doubtful claims, incorrect information, and usually a complete lack of balance.
The latest was in The Times yesterday, headlined with the old cliche "Dubai's dream is built on sand".
Oh dear.
Over the years there seems to be only three headlines they can come up with 'The Miracle of Dubai', 'Built On Sand', 'Dubai's Dark Dream'.
Where did creativity go?
Anyway, this one starts with the same old problems, there's no history, as though Dubai suddenly appeared out of the desert in 2000. There's no context either and it talks about the place as though it's the only one hit by the economic crisis, the only one with a property slump and high debts.
All of this is something that requires the attention of the new Media Office for Brand Dubai by the way. Giving information, placing stories, about Dubai's history as a trading, commercial and retail centre from it's very beginnings.
An example of lack of context in this latest article is 'house prices are down by as much as 50%' without saying that relates to September's peak. As one of the comments points out, 'although property is down 50%, it is 100% more than in 2004'.
It also cherrypicks one prediction, that property prices will fall a further 20%. It chooses to ignore other predictions that prices have reached bottom.
But there's also good stuff too, such as the poor decision on the new property-related visa, about the apparent slowness to react to the crisis and in particular about the lack of transparency and communication. That's something government and business here is struggling to come to terms with, although I think there's evidence that things are improving.
It's really culture and tradition. Those in charge, whether of companies or government, have traditionally just made decisions and got on with it. No communication, no transparency because it wasn't needed, people just accepted that was the way things were done here.
When you think about it there've been huge changes in these areas in a very short period and although there's a long way to go we're generally moving in the right direction.
Unlike almost all the previous pieces on Dubai this latest one does bring in some balance in the second part and it includes a range of opinions.
As always I like to read the comments, and again there's some balance from the 26 currently on the website as I write this, including as usual comments from the extremes.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
