询问任何一个CEO、企业管理者关于“企业最佳增长策略”，得到的答案不外乎是“海外扩张”、“赚老外的钱”等……
事实上，这也许能够堪称企业快速增长策略，但却并非一条通用法则。众多企业主可能瞄准的是新兴市场，并认为新兴市场的增长速度有望达到投资者预期的水平。
实际上，形形色色的各大中小型企业铺天盖地的抢占海外市场是十分不明智的举动，尤其是在此之前没有做足功课，也没有成功的本土经营在先的情况下，更是相当危险。这个观点是康奈尔大学约翰逊管理学院（Cornell's Johnson School of Management）国际和企业关系副院长兰迪•艾伦（Randy Allen）提出来的。
没错，新兴市场的确具有致命的诱惑力，但企业要想在新兴市场寻找到井喷式增长的轻松项目可没那么简单。在这里，对于那些正在摩拳擦掌进军国际市场的企业，有几条独到的建议比较关键。
关于“金砖四国”的提法
德勤咨询公司（Deloitte Consulting）专研新兴市场的专家大卫•马丁（David Martin）说：“压根儿就不存在什么所谓的‘金砖四国’（ BRIC）。”金砖四国是由美国的高盛投资公司（GS，Goldman Sachs）创造的新型概念，用来指代全球最大的4个新兴市场国家——巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国。
但是，金砖四国本来就是个错误。拿其中之一的俄罗斯来说，自2008年经济持续走低以来，俄罗斯国内就鲜有表现突出的大型企业。而且，通常情况下，国家就不应该被成群结队的捆绑在一起，因为各个国家都有不同的国情，需要不同的策略。即使同一个国家，也有地区及城乡等各不相同的差异。所以，企业想通过这种所谓的组织，寻找新兴市场，不是正确的思路，必然行不通。
当然，也有一些企业，为了迎合新兴市场的消费习惯，大胆革新产品（比如，删除原产品的某些功能），并降低售价以期吸引海外消费者。马丁说，“这种做法极其错误。”的确，很多新兴市场消费者确实更偏爱价钱便宜的货品，“但是，你千万不要以为他们傻，”他继续说道，“他们可都知道自己花钱买的是什么。”
知识产权不容小觑
就像消费者喜好一样，新兴市场的本地法律制度也可以是各不相同。在美国，合同对企业有着强有力的约束力。但在新兴市场中，合同协议有时候可以根据情况进行修改。在许多市场，为了维持长期的合作关系，交易双方的熟稔程度比一纸合约更有用。西北大学凯洛格管理学院（Northwestern's Kellogg school of management）副教授本杰明•琼斯（Benjamin Jones）补充道，“即使在某些政治波动的情况下，这种关系受到了影响（意指合同也不是绝对的）。”
美国安然公司（Enron）就曾在印度的Dabhol电厂项目上遭受过此类问题困扰。1992年，安然公司起初签下了价值29亿美元的Dabhol电力公司电厂项目，该项目由印度政府支持。但是，1994年初，反对政治候选人通过政治手腕反对安然公司接手该项目，最终赢了。几个来回，安然公司最终被迫无奈撤出该项目。
在海外，企业还需要面对海外知识产权的问题。比如在中国，专利信息权就很难保证。前不久，在昆明查封的山寨苹果店就是最铁的例证。
琼斯说，规避专利权风险，企业也有可以借鉴的办法。第一个办法是福特汽车在T型车组装线上所使用的策略：即生产商用不同的设备生产不同的部件，然后再组装，这样即可有效的防止生产工艺被窃。另一个办法是，与当地公司或政府建立伙伴关系，琼斯接着说，“当然，也要确保他们在这场游戏中各有所获。”
你不可能独享市场
无论如何，新兴市场再诱人，当地消费者和企业也都比过去任何时候更加精明。只有真正具备实力的企业和产品才能够获得一席之地。
专家说，许多先进的发达国家依然有着十分严重的“殖民地心态”。他们以为，在那里发明、商业化，市场也一定是他们说了算。其实，这种想法早已显得幼稚愚蠢。
殖民地心态早已不起作用了。事实上，很多国家都希望跨国公司能够改变既定业务模式，为了满足当地市场。
而且，千千万万、大大小小的公司都在争夺这些市场。并且，大多数的跨国公司都已满足了他们的不同需要。
马丁说，这是给大家敲响了警钟。友情提示那些目光定位海外的企业，在迈出扩张计划第一步的时候，先在国内做出飞跃。
Ask just about any CEO about the best growth strategy, and you'll hear about faraway places. Business leaders, frustrated with sluggish developed markets, are looking abroad for future growth.
This can be a great approach for many companies, as Fortune pointed out last week. But while executives may feel the need to enter emerging markets to grow as fast as investors want, many mistakenly assume that a U.S.-born business plan will succeed abroad.
In fact, an overwhelming majority of companies enter emerging markets without doing their homework before setting up shop in other countries, says Randy Allen, associate dean for international and corporate relations at Cornell's Johnson School of Management.
Emerging markets may be attractive, but companies looking for an easy growth spurt are getting in over their heads. There are a couple of key points to consider before rushing abroad.
A BRIC imagination
"There is no such thing as BRIC," says David Martin, an emerging markets specialist with Deloitte Consulting. BRIC, a term coined by Goldman Sachs (GS), refers to the pack of countries -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- considered ripe for new business.
But BRIC is a false grouping. For one, Russia has been much less exciting to big business since the downturn in 2008. And, in general, countries shouldn't be clumped together because each requires a distinct strategy. Even within countries, differences between regions make for different markets. The differences between, say, urban and rural areas in China require distinct business plans that take into account everything from consumer preferences to transportation.
While many companies think that making their products cheaper by removing features is the equivalent of tailoring them to emerging markets, Martin says, but they're wrong. While some markets may demand less expensive products, "you don't have unsophisticated consumers," he says, "they know what they're getting."
Word is bond?
Like consumer preferences, local legal systems in emerging markets can vary. In the United States, the contract is a strong binding force for businesses. But contract agreements in emerging markets can bend. In many markets, the strength of a deal depends more on a long-lasting relationship than a signed piece of paper, says Benjamin Jones, an associate professor at Northwestern's Kellogg school of management. Even those relationships can be jeopardized by fluctuations in the political climate.
Enron suffered from this problem (among other things) with its Dabhol power plant in India. In 1992, the company began a $2.9 billion power plant project with the Dabhol Power Company, backed by the Indian government. Starting in 1994, an opposing political candidate ran on an anti-Enron platform, and won, setting off a legal back-and-forth that ultimately forced Enron to pull out of the project.
Companies are also facing difficulties with intellectual property rights abroad. In China, for one, proprietary information is proving hard to protect. Just this past week, Chinese authorities have identified 22 retail outlets in Kunming city copying the the iconic Apple store .
There are a couple of ways that companies are trying to sidestep patent issues, says Jones. One is the same tactic used on the Ford (F) Model-T assembly-lines: manufacturers build parts of products in different facilities, making them difficult to reverse-engineer. An alternative method is to form partnerships with local companies or governments, Jones says, to "make sure they have some skin in the game."
You're not the only show in town
Either way, emerging market consumers and businesses are redefining the terms of engagement with companies from larger economies. Companies looking to slap a Western business model on operations abroad are going to be sorely disappointed.
"Many advanced countries still have a colonial mindset, of 'we invent here, we commercialize it, and now it's possible to market it there,'" says Jagdish Sheth, a professor of marketing at Emory University's Goizueta Business School.
The colonial mindset won't work anymore. In fact, many countries require multinationals to transform their business models to gain access to their market. Take India, which has tariff laws that make it much easier to import computer components than finished computers, which pressures manufacturers to produce in their country.
Other U.S.-based companies are competing for these markets too. Most big multinationals have already staked their claim. Now, medium-size companies are scrambling not just for a piece of the action, but for talent as well.
For example, one of Deloitte's clients outlined plans to hire 20,000 Chinese employees over two years. "I've talked to three of your competitors," Martin told the client, "and I've read about four others. I can't tell you there aren't 20,000 people with the skill set you need, but I can tell you there aren't 120,000."
It was a wake-up call, Martin said. For companies who are eyeing overseas expansion, it's far better to have one of those before you make the leap.
