Mijo! Brands: The Non-War Over Puerto Vallarta's Digital Strategy Daniel Gomez and Ramon Lopez - Mijo! Brands
June 21, 2014

PUERTO VALLARTA - Despite the fleeting media furor over Puerto Vallarta's digital strategy, the Fideicomiso de Turismo has yet to formally respond to our request to review the bases on which the recent decision to award the contract was made. If one day we are allowed to view the results that provide proof of a rigorous and technical evaluation and that the best proposal won out, it will be proof that democracy is alive and well in Vallarta.

Before asking for a formal review of the selection process we analyzed the risks inherent of being a whistle blower. It is a risky business move, certainly more to lose than to gain: you can be labelled as a trouble-makers or as opportunists, however different the reality.

There's no arguing that there is much room for improvement in Mexico when it comes to the opacity with which corporations and governments operate, this does not mean that they are inherently wrong, it simply means that communication and transparency need improving.

Was it worth it, creating a scandal? We didn't set out to create a scandal, we set out to request transparency, or an explanation regarding a decision taken by the Fideicomiso de Turismo. We waited patiently and called almost daily to see if there was any information coming our way.

Now, 10 days since we submitted a request for a review, there is a strange dichotomy at play. On one side, the Secretary of Tourism for Jalisco has responded to the now controversial decision by committing to review the awarding of the digital promotion contract – while simultaneously reassuring us that the risk of irregularity is unlikely due to the fact that those at the Fideicomiso have a proven track record of success – on the other, the Fideicomiso has promised greater transparency through more frequent reporting.

It took media attention to get a response. We hold our position that the process was irregular and requires review. We are prepared to be proven wrong, it is the Fideicomiso's responsibility to be transparent and respond to such requests. Equally it is our collective responsibility to question and even challenge these agencies that act on our behalf.

Sadly, it seems that civic cynicism is much more active than civic participation. And the responsibility is squarely ours, not the Fideicomiso's. That this was the first time that anyone had challenged the Fideicomiso says more about us as a docile community than it does about the quasi-government agency. Democracy thrives when the ability to coexist or thrive despite or because of differences is achieved. That our challenge was met equally with a wall of silence and hysteria at our insolence at objecting publicly reflects poorly on Vallarta.

Does disagreeing with the status quo mark us its enemy, no, it simply means that on this occasion, we disagreed, and strongly, with a decision that it took. Will we be able to participate in future projects for the city? We hope so, because we are passionate about the city and want to be a part of its success. Were we wrong? We don't think so, but are aware there is a chance we may yet be proven so, and we're OK with that.

Was it worth it? Depends on how you evaluate the outcome. The secretary of tourism is reviewing a decision the Fideciomiso made regarding how it distributes public funds. What ever his verdict on the matter, the unprecedented review proves our fledgling democracy is functioning, at least in one particular aspect. In turn, the Fideicomiso has acknowledged the need for and promised greater transparency. While our particular request has not yet been met, the offer of greater transparency is certainly progress no matter which way you look at it.

We were asked by a professional and respected mentor, with knowledge of mechanics of governance in Puerto Vallarta, what exactly we were trying to achieve by setting off this chain of events. It was an excellent question to which we had several related responses including transparency, accountability and fairness. In the end we responded with an offer of collaboration. There's a saying that came to mind as we considered his question and the fleeting tornado of scandal we found ourselves embroiled in it which goes something like this: “if your not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”

We propose the following, though not dissimilar to what the Fideicomiso has recently committed itself  to, it goes slightly further:

A proposal for the development of a collaborative and transparent process for the selection of the digital promotion strategy for the destination of Puerto Vallarta:

1) The creation of an Independent Committee composed of technical specialists to evaluate and issue a recommendation on the best proposal to the Technical Committee.

2) The creation of a process developed in conjunction with the Technical Representative of the Fideicomiso de Turismo, their technical advisors and representatives of the current promotional agencies and those that participated in the bidding process (if interested and qualified) to define and regulate said bidding process ensuring an equity and transparency that provides the framework for the Independent Committee to analyze and recommend the agency/proposal that offers the greatest benefit/value-added digital strategy/campaign based on objective and predefined goals and metrics.

3) A commitment to reopen the bidding for the digital promotion of the destination within 6 months once the new guidelines regulating the process have been implemented if the bases for the current selection are not published.

4) Amendment of existing Fideicomiso regulations ensuring the future publication of tenders and bases for agency selection in local/national media.experience and strategic online and offline marketing services. Visit the website here

We invite you to add your charity or supporting organizations' news stories and coming events to PVAngels so we can share them with the world. Do it now!