It has to be tough to work in the marketing department of one of California’s container ports. While California’s container volumes continue to decline dramatically, new capacity continues to come on-line at Atlantic, Gulf coast, Canadian and Mexican ports. Combine the competitive pressures of these new facilities with the downturn in overall trade volumes, historic decline in freight rates and massive losses for ocean carriers and it’s clear why the competition to attract trade through West Coast gateways has become particularly intense. But the ports’ marketing departments have an additional challenge, perhaps their greatest one – the ports themselves.

Case in point, it was recently reported that the Port of Los Angeles is lobbying Congress to amend the federal act which preempts any local governmental regulation of the trucking industry with regard to the price, route or service of a motor carrier. As this federal preemption was the basis of a forceful ruling issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a successful action brought by the American Trucking Association against the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the attempt to get around the Ninth Circuit ruling is the Port of LA’s attempt to impose “employee mandates” on port trucking firms.

This might not be all that noteworthy on its face, except that it runs contrary to the Port’s own financial interests, threatens jobs and is being strongly opposed by cargo owners and the general trade community. This makes for an interesting marketing strategy – alienating your customers while trying to convince them to keep their business from leaving the Port of LA. Probably not a sustainable business model.

The Port of Oakland has now decided to pursue a similar marketing strategy. It recently passed a resolution, consistent with the Port of LA’s efforts with respect to trucking, encouraging the US Congress to “…expand the exceptions to [federal] preemption to include environmental, security and congestion programs…” In a bit of irony (or tortured Orwellian logic to some), the Port is seeking a “national” goods movement policy – but in the same breath, seeking local exceptions from the benefits of federal uniformity.

Not surprisingly, the resolution was strongly opposed by the trade community, particularly by the very agricultural exporters and intermodal shippers that the Port needs to court if they are to remain competitive. Not exactly putting out the “Welcome Mat” for new customers – and not a marketing move expected from a port that is struggling financially and is considered a “discretionary” port by most cargo interests to begin with.

If California ports are to be successful in attracting cargo, they need to put themselves in their customers’ shoes – and recognize that global trade is a competitive environment which is not tolerant of policies that are based solely on political patronage.