Reality TV is not about what is happening on set. It’s about how it makes the audience feel. Donald Trump knows this.

The “surprise” video he played purporting to show genocide in SA created audience tension. The conversation in the room fed audience voyeurism, the pleasure created by watching others’ discomfort from your own armchair; the thrill of accessing political back-room dealing that is normally hidden from public view, the unscripted conversation extracting emotional content and serving it up to the viewing public.

The way reality TV goes, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s meeting in the Oval Office ranked below audience hits like the Volodymyr Zelensky meeting, or the assault on Keir Starmer’s stiff upper lip.

But that might have been an achievement for the SA team. By calmly returning to the facts and repeatedly offering to engage further off camera, the voyeuristic thrill of the meeting was rather dampened. SA, it seemed, was not that interesting after all. Press coverage after the encounter was focused on Trump’s factual make-believe in the left-wing press, while the right-wing press made more of the golfers being in the room.

It was a Big Brother episode in which no-one jumped into anyone else’s bed, or a Keeping up with the Kardashians episode with no jealous fights. How dull.

For Trump, any chance to feed popular hunger must be grasped. There were certainly uncomfortable undertones of racism in the event, in line with the whole white genocide and refugee narrative. Trump’s voter base seems to lap that up. Perhaps he thinks it was a helpful episode in the series to maintain audience loyalty.

But for the South Africans, what was the point? Like many reality TV contestants I think this is the question that must linger in mind. Were they just used as props by Trump? The white genocide narrative was, I think, disrupted to some extent by the visit. That is in the positive column. But in its place there was a hefty emphasis on SA’s general crime levels, which is perhaps not a public image win, though may shift some much-needed domestic effort towards dealing with it.

For those of us concerned with economic performance and company profits, the key issue is trade. And on that front, despite much talk, there doesn’t seem to be much to report. Trump’s tariffs are a serious risk to our economy. While raw material exports like platinum and titanium are exempt from them, the 30% tariff will hit manufactured goods and 25% tariffs on aluminium and steel also inflict pain.

Raw materials make up about a third of SA exports, and manufactured goods 30%, including vehicles, machinery and chemicals. The problem we face is that manufactured goods have a far bigger economic impact because of the amount of value added. It is not just about digging it out of the ground and putting it on a ship. Many more people are employed and much more in tax and other economic benefits are supported.

The US absorbs about 10% of our exports, equivalent to 2.2% of GDP. Of course, some of the exports that are disrupted by tariffs will find different markets, so the economic impact can be partly blunted. Of course, that depends on whether a global recession is triggered by the tariff wars that dampens demand generally.

The SA government has apparently tabled offers on trade. Ramaphosa said in his weekly newsletter that there was agreement to discuss trade. There also appears to have been some thawing of Trump’s attitude towards attending G20 meetings here later in the year. But none of that is very specific.

Internationally, the only deal done on which there is some clarity is that between the UK and US, which essentially amounted to the UK accepting a 10% blanket tariff, hardly a better-off position than before the tariff war.

Finding a face-saving way to licence Starlink under some equity equivalent scheme will be a small part of it. The trouble is SA does not have a lot to offer the US. If we wanted to play hardball we could try to trade off access to raw materials with better tariff deals on manufactured goods. But what the US wants to see is a swing in the trade balance — more US imports by SA. On that front SA has tabled the possibility of importing more liquefied natural gas from the US.

That is fine in theory, our energy plan does need gas. But we are years away from building the infrastructure needed to take receipt of LNG and distribute it. And even once it is built, the government is not the one who will be buying it — it will require SA companies to be the clients, and the US will have to compete. This does not seem a feasible negotiating point, so the prospect of a real trade deal emerging looks distant.

Like any reality TV series that has run too long, the Trump administration’s approach is becoming formulaic and predictable. The SA episode may have fallen flat because the visitors refused to play their roles as dramatic foils. The problem is that there are real stakes that go to the heart of the SA economy. There is no good strategy I can see that results in SA striking a deal that lessens the tariff impact we are facing.

As reality stars know, when the show’s over you have to get on with a life that is forever changed. US trade relationships are going to be difficult while the Trump show lasts. We will have to live with it.

• Stuart Theobald is chair of research-led consultancy Krutham. This article first appeared in Business Day.
  Image Credit: President Ramaphosa in Washington DC for a working visit at the invitation of President Trump by GovernmentZA, licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.