The China Vortex

For the past fifty years, globalization was offered as the answer to all the world’s ills: it would raise standards of living in the developing world, it would create more wealth, nations would understand each other better and eventually trust each other, and so on and so forth.

I’m going to state what is increasingly obvious: globalization is fading in the struggle against nationalism for peoples’ hearts and minds. The world has not become global; instead capital, wealth, classes and class values, as I have mentioned in the previous post, have gone global while leaving most of the rest of the world behind. For the moneyed classes, nations are less important, perhaps even irrelevant. That is happening now as the Chinese economy grows and Chinese companies are expanding their presence to other nations by investing in their financial companies, for example.

But the moneyed classes represent only a comparatively small percentage of the world’s population. Most belong to the middle class, who still see the world in terms of the nation-state. What do they think?

They are becoming more, not less, nationalistic. A recent article shows that Chinese consumers are gravitating to Chinese brands, not western brands. In the online search struggle, search engines become victims of these games.

The simple fact is that although the US and Chinese economies are tightly bound together, and depend on each other as their largest trading partners, they do not trust each other. This trust is getting wider and deeper with the passage of time; it is not getting smaller. People for the most part, still think in terms of national interests, not global interests.

As the rich/poor divide widens, and as the US dollar weakens and the US standard of living starts to head downhill, it will become expedient to blame globalization for the country’s ills. We aren’t there yet, but we will be. Previous administrations and the WTO will be blamed for the shortcomings of globalization. Increasingly, China and the Chinese people will be seen as a threat to western values and the western way of life.

This will make it increasingly difficult for brands to become international. Are they national? Whose side are they on? Who sits on their boards? These are questions they will be asked more and more.

That is why globalization is failing, and will ultimately fail. It’s just that no one wants to take the blame and be the first to make the call.

But that will happen soon enough…

Popularity: 48% [?]

Technorati Tags: China, Chinese, economy, globalization, nationalism, trade, US, usa, values, western, wto

One phrase I have heard frequently from well-to-do Chinese business people is 钱无祖国. Roughly translated into English, this means that “capital has no homeland”; it largely goes wherever it can get the best return for its owners.

The flip-side of this statement is that the nation-state, this political entity which has been so important for the past 500 years, is gradually losing power and influence. As technology enables individuals more and more, governments and large organizations lose power, influence and attraction.

How many bright young people have you met who said “I want to work for a large organization?” In the tech sector, the number is small; most prefer to work at startups. I predict that this trend will soon spread to media and other fields. It’s just easier to get things done and you don’t need to share the profits among as many people.

This is what those who criticize the article about sovereign wealth fund stakes in Google and Apple don’t understand. When a corporation’s shares are traded on the open market, a corporation is no longer just a national entity, it is a global entity. Apple and Google are global corporations, not American corporations. Their owners, shareholders and employees are global, not just American. They just happen to have their main domicile in the US and were first incorporated in the US and are subject to US laws, but that’s it. Only if capital restrictions are put in place can you prevent anything like the scenario I have put forward from taking place. If the US were to do that, it would amount to the US government admitting that globalization, a policy that all US administrations have pedaled to the American people for the past 50 years is wrong and is bad for America.

Doug Rediker has an excellent article about the difference between how national banks and investment banks see this trend.

If there is one area where many Americans have fallen woefully short it has to do with educating themselves about the importance of managing your finances in a smart manner. Roger Ehrenberg draws an excellent picture of how the subprime mortgage mess grew, and how most Americans are responsible.

The same rules of economics which apply to individuals also apply to countries and nation-states. Foremost among these is the rule that if you remain a debtor over a prolonged period of time, you lose control of your own destiny, and become subject to the whims of others.

The pendulum has now swung in China’s favor; in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, China was the economic basket case. For the most part, Chinese have learned the importance of savings and not going into debt. Will the next generation of Chinese remember this lesson? Time will tell.

Americans need to face up to this unpleasant reality, and the sooner the better. The first step to recovery is to recognize that one is in trouble and needs to change current behavior.

The old ways just don’t work anymore.

Popularity: 44% [?]

Technorati Tags: Apple, business, capital, China, Chinese, economics, globalization, google, nation-state, subprime, technology

Just saw a fascinating article about how China is now attracting new immigrants, including a Kurdish family which fled Iraq for the peace and safety of Yiwu in Zhejiang province.

The US was founded on the principle of immigration, freedom and justice for people from all countries. Now that appeal is fading.

According to the story, not everything in China is perfect. For instance, one Iraqi man was denied the right to be buried in China even after his immediate kin made an appeal for it. Let’s hope that more humanitarian standards can be applied in the future.

Maybe Lou Dobbs won’t have to worry about illegal immigrants and free trade much longer.

I’d like to find out what his new tune would be…

Popularity: 27% [?]

Technorati Tags: China, immigrants, immigration, Iraq, Kurdish, muslim, US, Yiwu, Zhejiang

Over the past few years, one subject has dominated Chinese thinking on the government and enterprise levels: how to take Chinese brands global. During the runup to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and then the Shanghai Expo in 2010, this subject will become even more popular, as China’s economic power grows and the US’s economic dominance gradually recedes.

So far, the thinking is that Chinese companies, with some degree of Chinese government assistance, should buy leading US brands and manage them. This was the thinking, for example, behind Lenovo’s purchase of IBM’s money-losing PC division and the Thinkpad brand in 2004. It was also the thinking behind the aborted CNOOC purchase of Unocal, an offer which had to be withdrawn because of heavy US congressional pressure over security.

Outright purchases of foreign companies, in the form of hostile takeovers and mergers rarely go well, even when the cultures of the two companies are close. When they are as far apart as Chinese and western companies, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against success.

Now there is renewed interest in buying western companies for yet another reason: the Chinese government is sitting on US$1.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, and with the dollar falling against the euro and other major currencies, there is strong pressure to invest this money in something else besides US dollars, which will continue to depreciate. In order to slow down this depreciation, the Chinese government has announced that it will establish a Chinese sovereign wealth fund to invest about US$200-300B in higher-yield investments. Within the past year, sovereign wealth funds have proliferated as foreign governments seek to diversify their foreign-exchange reserves out of US dollars, especially as the US subprime mortgage lending crisis has spread overseas.

For the Chinese government, which likes to do great projects which it can then use in PR to the Chinese people, there is a fundamental bottleneck: there are not enough Chinese who have international experience managing global companies. And those who do have the skills usually decide to spend their time and effort in the private sector where their skills are more needed. In one article some time ago, Business Week claimed that China needed about 75,000 international executives while there are only 5,000 available.

There is another problem with creating global brands: in most sectors, it takes an awful long time to create them. If you look at Toyota in the automobile sector, it has taken the company mostly since the period from 1945 to become established as a leading quality maker. When it comes to manufacturing, global brands are not made, they are earned on the basis of quality products.

The place where brands have sprouted relatively quickly are in the computing and hi-tech sectors. Apple has been around since the 70s and has undergone a dramatic rebirth under the tutelage of its founder, Steve Jobs, who returned in 1997 after Apple’s acquisition of NeXT. Since his return, he has launched the iMac, iPod and now iPhone lines, all of which have won critical acclaim from users worldwide. Steve Jobs has shown that he is that rare type of executive, someone who learns from his mistakes and is passionate about creating excellent products. Now, even for dedicated Windows computer users, Apple’s products are something worth thinking seriously about. When it comes to evoking pure passion among users, there is no company like Apple. The way Apple has launched the iPhone globally has shown that it fully understands how to use the power of the Internet and the media to create global attraction for its new products at very little cost. On October 26, the company will launch its latest version of the OS X operating system, Leopard.

The company’s success has been rewarded on Wall Street; the company now has a market cap of more than 148.2B and its shares are trading at $172.

Another company which has succeeded in creating a global brand in a relatively short time is Google, which was founded on September 27, 1998. Google started as a technology company, and has morphed into a company which understands, and is now revolutionizing the media business. Coming from a very strong technology core base, they like to constantly talk about their technology, even though that is relatively unimportant backend stuff to most people. Very early on, Google figured out that as computing, and now mobile computing grew, more and more data would be accessed from online. The question was: “What was the economic/business models which would support it?” The answer is first search, and then other formats of online advertising. Google strived to make advertising more relevant and less disruptive, and strived to do this all with its Adwords solution.

It has also been a success on Wall Street. Even though expectations were high, it blew past the estimates with its recent earnings announcement , growing the company at twice the growth rate of the growing online ad market.

While Google has continued to have a hard time succeeding in China because of strong competition from Baidu, it is performing exceptionally well in other markets. Compared to their smaller local competitors, US companies continue to have a hard time succeeding in China. Nevertheless, Google continues to make inroads in China.

When talking about large investment amounts, it is easy to forget that the most important part of the equation in brand-building is always people, not marketing dollars or yuan. Buying into Apple and Google would get an inside view into how these leading companies are run.

So what is the best, the smartest way to buy into these companies?

My guess is that the smartest way is to buy Apple and Google shares on the open market and gradually build up enough to get a board seat, where the sovereign wealth fund’s proxies could quietly learn how these companies perform, and find out who are the people who really make contributions to the company. Steve Jobs likes to create the persona that he is Apple and Apple is Steve Jobs, but the truth is not that simple.

Be a smart passive investor, not a dumb active investor. Learn to walk before you run. While it may seem a longer, slower process in the beginning, this is actually the faster, smarter and more economical way to go. Can you think of another way where you earn money while you learn instead spending big chunks?

So to sum up, the benefits of buying into Apple and Google are:

• Great place to park those extra depreciating dollars and get some appreciation
• Great way to learn how digital online products and brands are made
• Great way to find out who the smart movers and shakers are
• Great way to learn how to become a smart passive investor

If the sovereign wealth fund is doing what they were set up to do, they are already buying Apple and Google shares.

Now that would be real smart…

Popularity: 62% [?]

Technorati Tags: Apple, brand-building, brands, business, China, crisis, dollar, economic, funds, global, google, investment, media, mortgage, sovereign, subprime, US, wealth

I have been visiting Shenzhen for the past few days. The last time I was in Shenzhen was in 1999-2001, when the Internet bubble peaked.

This time around, the city has changed considerably since the last time I spent time here. Parts of the city are not recognizable, all in the good sense. There are many more skyscrapers than before, but somehow the city seems more refined and green than Shanghai and Beijing. When I was last here, the city had a grimy, grungy feel about it; no more. It takes pride in being the garden city of China, and in large parts, it is. The downtown area is clean, there are new and very modern shopping malls, and the people seem happy.

I have ridden several times on the Shenzhen Metro, it is very clean and modern. There is one line which roughly runs east-west; another line is under construction. Before, when I lived in Shenzhen, I would cross to Hong Kong every weekend. Now, I feel no need to do so; I can get everything I need in the city. Last night, I went out with a friend to a very nice and clean Japanese restaurant, owned by a Japanese, which had excellent fresh sashimi.

Real estate is still substantially cheaper, and many Hong Kong residents now keep their homes in Shenzhen, crossing the border every day when they go to work. Their children also go to Hong Kong schools, so when crossing customs in the morning and afternoon, there are often large groups of schoolchildren.

I went to a Starbucks once (there are many in Shenzhen; they first opened in the city in 2002), and in section of the cafe, I counted 25 persons and eight notebook computers in use. (In China, Starbucks offers free Wifi service.) If you work out the ratio, that means there were nearly three persons to every notebook computer in use, which is a very high ratio. I have not seen ratios this high in Shanghai, Beijing, or for that matter, in the US which is increasingly falling behind in many Internet usage statistics.

I have not checked any of the Internet cafes here, nor do I plan to. My own guess is that most Beijingers access the Internet from their offices, and the poor or 民工 access the Internet from Beijing’s low-priced Internet cafes since they cannot afford it at home. People in Shenzhen, for the most part, are comparatively well off since the city, which now has a population of 7-14 million mainly comes from other regions of China. (Over the years, the hukou system of individual registration has fallen into disuse, which is why the city government is no longer able to keep track of population.) If their usage of notebook computers in Starbucks is any indicator, they are also much more mobile.

Shenzhen is surrounded with factory satellite towns which employ many workers; most of these factories also supply food, housing and entertainment facilities to their employees. I’m sure that many of these factory workers now have broadband Internet access from their dormitory facilities.

Just to give you some indication of how common broadband is now, I am staying in a Home Inn (a Chinese chain of moderately-priced motels) which charge about US$25 a night. Broadband access is provided free of charge.

Shenzhen now has a very large and modern port and container facility which rivals Hong Kong in capacity.

I cannot help being impressed with Shenzhen’s and China’s development as a whole. In the late 70s, just when China’s reforms were starting and Shenzhen was just a fishing village, many refugees would try to swim across Mirs Bay to seek freedom in Hong Kong. Many of them drowned, and their bodies were washed up on the shores of Hong Kong, or Hong Kong held offshore islands.

Those days are gone.

The women in Shenzhen are fashionably dressed and wear makeup, and are more conscious of their looks than Beijingers. They also smile more readily, and look less self-conscious when they do. There is a lot of truth in the saying 天高皇帝远 (”The skies are higher when the emperor is far away”)

Definitely China is making progress. If the expressions on peoples’ faces are any indicator, China has come a long way.

Popularity: 39% [?]

Technorati Tags: Beijing, cafes, China, Hongkong, internet, port, shanghai, Shenzhen, Starbucks, wifi

In a previous article, I talked at some length about Jeremiah Owyang’s review of the current Internet situation in China, and what many Internet cafes are really like, and what is wrong with the current data about Internet usage in China.

In the article, I questioned the wisdom of Jeremiah’s visit only to Hong Kong and not to China. Specifically, I said:

I questioned the wisdom of going to Hong Kong to cover the Chinese Internet; to me it seemed like visiting Toronto to understand the UK market.

This has seemed to cause some consternation on Jeremiah’s part, who responded in on his blog:

I really enjoyed Paul’s additional commentary, although he questions why I would visit HK to cover mainland. Most of the people I talked to were from mainland, served mainland, or had their users in mainland, it was all tied.

A little clarification on my part: meeting with CEOs, analysts, entrepreneurs, investors, etc in HK is fine methodology for a 30K foot view, but it doesn’t work for me. Maybe I’m revealing my product management background here, but I actually like to see how users use a product, and extrapolate information and insights from that. That can only be done in on the ground in China.

CEOs, analysts, entrepreneurs and investors are all very bright and intelligent people full of strong opinions about what works and doesn’t work in China. Most of the time, they also have agendas, products and services to sell. This does not mean they are not telling the truth; they just want to present their companies in the best possible light. That is part of their job description.

It’s just that I think that it is my duty to tell my readers that there is more to China than meets the eye, and provide my view, not necessarily someone else’s spin. Sometimes it takes me time to digest the information and form my own conclusions; that is why blog only once or twice a week. Quality over quantity is what I strive for.

And that is why I went to some length to explain what the Chinese Internet cafes I have seen are really like. You see, I actually believe that it is important to walk into these Internet cafes and see what people are doing. To me, this is crucially important; this is what it’s all about. This is real spin-free information, which is usually hard to come by.

It gives me a feel for the environment in which people are living and operating with on the Internet in China.

I feel that this is what is missing from Jeremiah’s analysis by not visiting China, and that is what I tried to address in my posting. Hong Kong was ruled as a British crown colony from 1842 to 1997; Internet usage patterns there are vastly different from in China. Even within China there are vast differences based on geography and income.

I really thirst for that kind of boots on the ground analysis, which is why I have taken upon it to do it myself to present my readers with this kind of information. Economics is based on supply and demand, and if more people demand this kind of deeper analysis and are willing to pay for it, maybe, just maybe, the analysts, reporters, CEOs and ad agencies will provide it.

And to Jeremiah I would say: “Next time you come to China, let me know, and I’ll take you to visit some Internet cafes and we can talk about what people are really doing on the Internet. Then you can draw your own conclusions for your readers.”

UPDATE:
In this new posting from Ogilvy China Digital Watch, Kaiser Kuo quotes:

He also laments that marketing people never really interface with the people who understand the customers best: The employees, the recommenders, the distributors, the distributors, the influencers, tech support people, bloggers and the like. “We outsource our tech support to India.

I would say that this is the same problem with analysis of the Internet, especially the Chinese Internet. Sure you can get great sound bites, neat spreadsheets and all, but if it’s too far removed from the users, it is ultimately useless information. And unless it is grounded by checking with users, there is the very real danger that it will become dangerously wrong and irrelevant.

This is what is wrong with so much information about the China market, a subject I talked about in this article.

Do you feel the same way? Please feel free to comment below.

ANOTHER UPDATE:

The best stats and most useful quantitative and qualitative information come from people who have lived in China for some time. Kaiser Kuo and William Bao Bean are doing such an excellent job that I’m just going to link to them and their coverage of Adtech Beijing.

Kaiser has also added some useful commentary and perspective on my read of China’s Internet cafes.

TIP:If you have a serious interest in Chinese online media, you should subscribe to Ogilvy China Digital Watch.

Popularity: 44% [?]

Technorati Tags: analysis, cafes, China, internet, jeremiah-owyang, usage

Adtech Beijing will be coming up on October 16-17 at the China World Hotel in Beijing.

Since I did not get an invitation to address that other important meeting taking place in Beijing on Oct. 15, I decided to go to Adtech.

Just kidding! Adtech has a great list of speakers. Sure, you don’t get a chance to plot the course of the world’s most populous nation for the next five years, but it makes for a good second choice.

Many people whom I have met on the Internet, but have never had the pleasure of meeting in person will also be attending Adtech.

If you are one of those people going and would like to meet, please give me a call at one three five five two zero one zero four nine three.

It would be great to meet and put a face on the person; I’m sure we’ll have plenty to talk about!

Popularity: 30% [?]

Technorati Tags: adtech, advertising, Beijing, China, media

In my previous post, I talked about the dark side of China’s Internet cafes. I was surprised at how quickly I got responses to the posting; there were more than six comments in less than two hours.

Now, I would like to talk about a business opportunity in China’s Internet cafes. One of the biggest problems with Internet cafes is the uneven quality of the management; most are terribly managed, some are managed pretty well. Overall, the well-managed cafes suffer from the poor image problem associated with the whole industry. In a comment following my post, Fons Tuinstra says that the numbers of people going to Internet cafes are falling sharply, citing CNNIC figures. I suspect that this is because of a combination of factors:

• Educated Chinese families don’t like them because of their bad reputation
• With laptop computer prices coming down to 7,000-8,000 yuan for a fully equipped notebook, prices are coming with the range of most urban Chinese
• With monthly DSL prices between 100-200 yuan; broadband access is now affordable

In spite of all this, the Internet cafe still has attraction as a social and recreation area for young people who are looking for places to meet which don’t cost too much.

So why hasn’t someone come in with a roll-up strategy, buying up the good Internet cafes, offering professional management and a franchise package, and turning the whole thing into a franchise like Starbucks, McDonald’s or KFC? After all, that is how Ray Kroc started with McDonald’s in the 50s in the US.

These Internet cafes should offer clean well-lit areas which are frequently cleaned, fresh food and drink, clean bathrooms and a good overall experience. Just think of what could be done if a Chinese Internet cafe experience could be as good as an Apple store! Yes, prices would be higher but it would attract a much better demographic group. And a better demographic would make for a better advertising market.

Events could be planned for the stores educating people about online buying and selling, and to demo new products and services. Game contests could be held in a much better environment than are available now.

If I were an advertiser, I would really love to reach this demographic group. They would be upwardly mobile, not like the permanent urban underclass we now see in so many Internet cafes.

In short, make the Internet cafe a place where Chinese parents would not be ashamed of letting their child go to, and a place where the child could tell his parents he is at, without having to lie or admit to shamefully.

This would help to clean up the image of an industry which badly needs to improve its image. It would even make sense for an advertising company to get into it, as the advertising opportunities in a wholesome Internet cafe franchise are huge. I can think of several companies which should seriously consider doing an Internet cafe franchise in China:

• Focus Media
• Baidu
• Tencent
• Google
• Starbucks
• McDonald’s
• KFC

And now, here’s the company I’d really like to see do a Internet cafe franchise in China because it really knows about making cool stuff and it understands lifestyle marketing. If they did it, and did it right, they would own the Chinese Internet cafe experience.

Now wouldn’t that be something! You saw it here first.

I can always wish…

Popularity: 72% [?]

Technorati Tags: advertising, Apple, baidu, business, cafes, China, Chinese, data, demographic, game, google, internet, management, market, marketing, mobile, online, tencent, US, usa, yuan

Jeremiah Owyang has published a good report for beginners who know nothing about China’s internet market. I questioned the wisdom of going to Hong Kong to cover the Chinese Internet; to me it seemed like visiting Toronto to understand the UK market. However, he does have some good takeaways for people just starting out in China and who do not read,write or speak Chinese.

I am going to dig a little deeper. Christine Lu of the China Business Network has mentioned to me that her audience is mainly for new people just starting out with China; I’m going to dig deeper and point out some real issues behind the current numbers tossed about re China. Tangos Chen has an excellent follow-up posting which is well worth a read.

All the reports which have so far covered China have been based on impressing non-Chinese with the huge numbers of China’s online population. This provides a very incomplete picture of China’s Internet users, especially those who go to Internet cafes. Most of these people go to play games and communicate with each other using QQ.

An awful lot is posted about China’s large online gaming population accessing the games from China’s Internet cafes. I suspect that a lot of the people who write these articles have never even been inside one in China. I would like to tell you about my first-hand experiences.

I am now in Beijing, and I have been to several Internet cafes here. Several months ago I also went to several in Shanghai.

Let me tell you something about these Internet cafes and their users. For the most part, these Internet cafes are shitholes and firetraps. And the people who go there are young, single, low-income males. They do not bring their dates there. The places are smoky, dingy and poorly lit. They sell some basic food and beverages in the front, and also charge people a fee to sleep overnight on the dirty, bug-infested, stained futons which pass for couches. If you want a truly terrible experience, visit their bathrooms.

These are dirty decrepit places in every way; they are just filthy. If fire safety laws were actually enforced, they would be shut down. And the people who spend their day playing games are, in my opinion, China’s new urban permanent underclass. Why do they go to Internet cafes? Because most of them are from outside Beijing and Shanghai, and the Internet cafe is the cheapest place to go to. They can get by spending 20-30 yuan (US$5-6) a day, including food, drink, games and a place to sleep.

The characters are sad characters; if they were living in England 150 years ago, Charles Dickens would be writing about them. From the Chinese perspective, although games and the Internet are highly addictive, Internet cafes serve a useful purpose. Otherwise these people would be on the street, unemployed. The Internet cafe today in China is what gin and beer was to England’s working class in the mid-19th century when Karl Marx was writing Das Kapital about the evils of class exploitation.

Now, if you were an advertiser, would you want to reach this audience? It all depends.

If these people were working their way up the social ladder, got better jobs, made more money and spent less time playing games and socializing at the Internet cafes, then yes, there would be some value in reaching this audience. On the other hand, if these people are a permanent underclass who have very little money to spend, then the answer would have to be no.

I have made an interesting observation from a personal experience. Earlier this year I visited Chongqing for the first time, and went to an Internet cafe downtown. It was on the ground floor of a an office building (unlike in Beijing and Shanghai, which are in upper floors or basements). It had windows you could actually see in and out of. It was clean, had fresh air, and carried fresh food and drinks. Unlike Beijing and Shanghai, it was divided into smoking and non-smoking areas. The highest fee for a booth was 4 yuan an hour, and there were several people paying that amount at 11AM in the morning, when I visited. I could tell that it was cleaned and maintained on a daily basis. I would not have been ashamed of going into this Internet cafe, unlike in Beijing or Shanghai.

For this reason, I am much more impressed with Internet cafe users in Chongqing than I am with Internet cafe users in Beijing and Shanghai, which are basically awful.

The trouble with the reports about China’s market is that they don’t go deep enough; they just present very basic number information, enough to make the marketing and bizdev types get excited about China, but not enough to ask hard questions which provide insights into user behavior, so that advertisers can really take a deeper look at Chinese audiences, because there is not one; there are many.

Here are some questions I would ask and like to see answered in a report, and advertisers contemplating targeting China’s Internet cafe users should also ask:

• Please explain your methodology for data gathering.
• What cities and provinces do you gather data from?
• How do you scrub your data to make sure that it is as close to factually correct as possible?
• What is their average income divided by city/region/provinces?
• What kind of jobs do they have divided by city/region/provinces?
• How many hours do they spend online per day divided by city/region/provinces?
• Can you show me the amount of churn of Internet users over time? (This is one of those rare situations where high churn is a good thing; you want these people to make their way up the social ladder.)
• What games and activities do they spend their time on?
• Define the difference between hardcore and casual gamers over time.
• How much money do they spend every month divided by city/region/province?
• What do they spend their money on, divided by city/region/province?

I always find this kind of information much more useful than the “Wow, China has a lot of people!” level of coverage; I find this information, for example, very helpful in understanding the Chinese mobile market and its users better.

I’d like it if the publishers of Ogilvy China Digital Watch
or CiC or some other agency could commission a report like this, and make it widely available on the Internet.

I suspect that the hard-core gamers are basically a bunch of losers, but the casual gaming market has good potential for advertisers.

It is time for advertising departments to start slicing and dicing the Chinese audience on demographic and psychographic profiles, and finding out the education/economic profiles of different audiences. Forget the big numbers about China; let’s get our hands dirty and start looking for insightful information which will really help advertisers, consultants and everyone else.

Enough China hype already; it’s time to dig deeper and get down to business and start making money for our clients.

Popularity: 100% [?]

Technorati Tags: advertising, Beijing, bizdev, cafes, China, demographic, gaming, internet, jeremiah-owyang, marketing, mobile, profiles, psychographics, qq, shanghai

For most of my career, I have been looking for patterns to discover why some companies come out of nowhere and become big and great, and why others who have dominated the market lose market share and users to the newcomers. More often than not, the newcomers are entrepreneurs who had a vision, while the established companies were as Lou Gerstner called it in his book, “Who Says Elephants Can’d Dance?”

I have looked at startups and established companies, and if there is one word which separates the hungry newcomers from the established, shall I say it, dinosaurs, it is fear. It is not so much the emotion, but how they react to the possibility of failure. More than anything else, this strikes at the heart of what differentiates the entrepreneur from the established firms which frequently end up belonging to another age, and usually end up being swept into the dustbin of history.

Most successful Internet companies, whether they are Yahoo! or Google in the US, and Shanda, Baidu, Alibaba or Tencent in China have one common theme in their histories. At some low point in their early years, their founder/s almost gave up, and they almost sold their companies at a low price to another company. When this happened, the founder/s would seriously consider their options. Sometimes they would lay off people, cut down their costs, maybe fight with their spouses who wanted them to quit and work for IBM or Microsoft or somehow throw in the towel and give up, or sell out. Then, when things were at their lowest point, their user numbers would go up, or they would secure funding and they would turn the corner and start to grow dramatically.

It is all about fear, and overcoming fear. When you have reached a low point, there is no more fear.

“What is the worse thing that can happen to you?”

That you will lose your house? Your car? Your spouse and family? That you will die and be forgotten? Are you willing to take these risks?

When you have reached that point, there is nothing more to fear. It’s all about willingness to sacrifice today in the belief that you will succeed tomorrow. What is there to lose? Money? That has already been invested. Quitting would only be a recognition of the loss; most entrepreneurs refuse to recognize the loss. This is what makes entrepreneurs special; the best ones are truly fearless.

On an individual basis, this is called a near-death experience. If you are not sure what I mean, watch the movie Fearless (1993).

And it’s not about money. They know that money buys the trappings of success such as a big house and trophy wife or mistresses, but that they are just trappings of success. After they become successful, they frequently look back on their “good old days”. And what are their good old days? When they didn’t know whether they would make the month’s payroll, or were living in their car, or eating instant noodles because they could not afford anything better.

This is not something which can be taught in business school. And this is why the US was, and now China is, a great place for entrepreneurs. It’s easy when you are starting from zero. More than any other markets, American business investors believe in the value and experience of failure; this is where Japan and Europe cannot compete with the US and China.

And this is why is it so difficult for large companies to make the leap or cross the chasm. The only way for a successful marketmaker to bridge the gap is to give up all its revenue, all its investments and to start over again.

That has not happened yet. Microsoft has tried to do it, but they cannot sacrifice revenue; their investors won’t let them. Yahoo! was a great Web 1.0 company with great assets but has had significant challenges reinventing itself from the glory days when banner ads were king. When companies become successful, they attract people who wish to avoid risk and who want to make money to buy their big homes, drive big cars and to have their status. They are risk avoiders, not risk takers. Once a company starts to attract this kind of person, it cannot re-invent itself.

It fears failure and won’t take risks.

Entrepreneurialism is all about finding success or failure relatively quickly by putting everything on the line. What the Internet has done in the US and now in China is it has sped up the failure and success cycle, collapsing the amount of time it takes to discover what works.

In my articles I am frequently critical of large businesses which cannot adapt to new changed situations; this is because they are afraid of fear and failure. They want to be market dominators at a time when the market is changing beneath their feet. They have meetings and talk and grumble and analyze, but most of the time they are not able to do much. They acquire small companies to maintain growth, and more often than not, they destroy the spark which made those startups successful in the first place. Or the smart people who have entrepreneurial talent and are willing to take the risks see market opportunities and become entrepreneurs in their own startups themselves.

That is why successful change always comes from the bottom, not from the top. And that is why the cycle of change will continue, only faster.

UPDATE: Frank Yu pointed me to this article by the consistently good Paul Graham who says a lot of the same things.

Popularity: 46% [?]

Technorati Tags: alibaba, baidu, change, China, cycle, entrepreneur, founder, google, ibm, microsoft, money, Shanda, tencent, US, yahoo