The China Vortex

While there has been much heated discussion in recent days about what Apple plans to announce on January 27, almost all of the comments, some of which are very good and offer intelligent insightful analysis, focus on what Apple is famous for, the front-end user experience.

In this article, I would like to focus on what I think is just as important but talked about much less, the business angle for the Apple Tablet. Beginning with the iPod, while Apple focused on changing the consumer digital experience, it has worked just as hard on changing broken business models, starting with the music industry. In 2001, when the iPod was first launched, many people listened to their music on recordable CDs and CD players. The music industry’s major labels had fought and won against Napster, but the digitally savvy were distributing songs and music for free on the Internet.

Then Apple updated iTunes, and continuously added more power and features, first on the Macintosh platform for its loyal user base, then when it had reached a degree of stability, pushing out to the dominant Windows platform. At the same time, Steve Jobs negotiated with the music labels to get them to accept music sales for .99 per single song. There was strong initial resistance to this because the labels were used to selling CDs, and even though CD sales were falling, they stubbornly stuck to this model. That is, until reality stepped in, and someone had to point out the obvious, after which one broke rank and reached a deal with Apple. Then the others fell in line.

Before the iPhone, there was the same problem with applications on mobile phones. Except in this industry, the role of the music labels was replaced by the carriers. As Steve Jobs himself said (paraphrasing him here); they found an industry which was broken and didn’t make sense, and Apple’s engineers came up with a new solution combining a phone, a computer, and gaming device all into one elegant solution based on OS X technology with the Apple interface. The result has been the iPhone which has become popular, breaking sales records worldwide.

It would be all too easy to say that the success of the iPhone is based on device and user experience alone. That would take an oversimplified view of what Apple has been doing since the iPod: it creates new devices which at the same time, create new business ecosystems which increase and diversify the revenue streams for Apple, while making things easier for publishers. The design sexiness means that the new device can sell for a premium price which Steve Jobs (and his shareholders) love, while the backend store and ecosystem builds out, becoming an important distribution point for Apple services and locking in publishers.

I accurately predicted this with the launch of the AppStore for the apps which users can download/buy for their iPhones, giving them the power to customize their phones with their own selection of application software. For developers, the model, while not perfect, is simple to understand: developers set the sales price, and Apple takes 30% for hosting and billing while the developers keep the remaining 70%. The result has been outstanding sales success, even beyond what Apple predicted.

Looking at the book publishing industry today, it is a broken business model. From the author’s point of view, while writing a book is hard enough, the business side is even worse. First of all, in the US, one must find an agent and complete a draft and book proposal. The agent then shops the book to publishers, and then negotiates a deal with the book publisher, which usually involves the agent taking 10-20%. The publisher then may pay an advance (becoming increasingly rare), and then the author is paid a portion based on royalties for the books sold, which is usually 5-10%. The book publisher makes sure that the book is edited and makes its way into the book distribution system (dominated by 2-3 players) which gets it into book stores. However, the author is largely responsible for promotion. To make things even worse, bookstores in the US don’t really buy books; they sell on consignment. This means that they can return unsold books to the publisher, and get a refund, which cuts back even more on how much the author gets.

When you figure all this in, it’s amazing that there are any authors who make money at all! Now, let’s say that you are writing a book on a fast-changing field. In my case, my main subject is China and technology, both of which are fast-changing fields. By the time you go through the whole book publishing process and your book hits the shelves, everything has changed! Information which was current 18 months ago has been completely superseded by changes in Chinese government policy, changes in business conditions and changes in technology.

Please tell me: “How can an industry get more broken that that?” No wonder smart people are choosing to get their information from the Internet in preference to books!

If I were Steve Jobs, I would look at this and say: “If I have a good device which offers superb user experience, leverages off the current Mac user base (which now includes iPhone users), and ties in on the back end with a new business ecosystem which gradually sweeps aside the current broken publishing ecosystem, we might have something.”

Now, in order to make the Apple Tablet a real success, it has to have certain functionality which will not cannibalize iPhone and Mac notebook sales. This is why it’s point of attack will have to be on books, magazines and the publishing industry. It will offer developer tools for Apple’s digital publishing solution. Already there is talk about Apple’s new SDK for this new platform.

My prediction is that this new SDK will make it apparent why Apple has not been friendly about offering Adobe’s Flash access to the iPhone, since Apple’s solution will offer much of the same feature set as Adobe Flash, but will be more tightly bundled in on the front and back ends to the device and to the store. (Steve Jobs likes closed ecosystems where he controls the whole experience.) Tough times for Adobe’s Flash and Microsoft’s Silverlight: all dressed up and nowhere to go.

So what about Amazon’s Kindle, which have already outsold print books in distribution this past Christmas? Ironically, the Kindle will help Tablet sales since many Mac users have held back on buying a non-Apple device, waiting for Apple to come up with their solution. When they see the Apple Tablet, this pent-up demand will be released, because the Apple UI design and interface will offer something to them which the Kindle, in its current iteration lacks. Amazon will get a new competitor for online electronic distribution, which will cut into their Kindle sales and profits.

Speaking to a few book publishers (yes, they still exist), I have heard complaints that they are not able to make money on their Kindle editions; print distribution is still more profitable with them, even though sales are tracking down. Apple and Steve Jobs don’t have to do much to bring them aboard. My prediction is that the business model will be like the App Store offering for developers: “You set the final sales prices, we take a percentage on each sale.”

As for Google, they seem to be focusing most of their efforts on the Google Android platform, which will make inroads this year. This year, Google won’t be able to do much in the publishing field, and if and when Google does enter this field to compete with Apple, they need to undo much of the bad feeling with authors and publishers over copyright which started with Google Books to the point where a Chinese author has sued Google! (Hmmm… What’s wrong with this picture?) This will give Apple at least a two-year lead over Google in this field and Google will have to fight a tough uphill battle when it comes in.

About this time, Apple will be getting into the advertising field. I mean, who is still impressed with small text box ads on their web page, and doesn’t find them at least a little annoying, even though they may be relevant? My guess is that Steve Jobs is thinking about applying some magic sauce to make them better, sexier both for advertisers and content syndicators, and in the process, getting more revenue, and a new revenue stream, for Apple. I find it hard to believe that Apple is investing so much in a new data center without new revenue streams. My guess is that it will include advertising, and if correct, then Google will be on the defensive. It may take the form of a free service Apple TV with ads, and subscription form without ads.

No wonder Steve Jobs is feeling extremely happy, life just keeps getting better and better.

If you look at the prevailing wisdom in business magazines, the view is that through the Chinese govt’s massive pumping of solvency into the economy beginning in November 2008, China has acted as a responsible global citizen, saving the world from a massive global meltdown which, left uncontrolled, would have forced the global economy back into the Stone Age. Without this massive stimulus package, Chinese factories would have had to lay off many more workers leading to more social problems, and maybe even social instability. And social instability is a no-no in China, especially when the stated policy goal is a harmonious society.

In order to maintain this top-down version of the harmonious society, the Chinese government, especially the media, has taken an active role in heading off issues which would be taken up by consumer rights organizations in other countries. Instead of trying to put a lid on dissent, reporters have acted more as investigators, giving lead coverage to stories such as lead poisoning by a government-owned smelter.

The thinking behind this new government pro-activism is that if government ministries can act pro-actively to head off issues before they become explosive social issues, then Chinese society can head off the kind of activism which is led by grassroots consumer organizations in other societies. At the same time, the Chinese government can clean itself up, shutting down companies which do heavy damage to environment and society, and replacing old-school bureaucrats with more modern technocrats who really know what they are doing.

The government’s job is helped and hindered by the Internet, which it has a love/hate relationship with. With more than 338M Chinese users on the Internet now, it has become the place where many bored and under-employed Chinese find entertainment and gossip. It helps the government keep an eye on local officials, since people will complain anonymously on the Internet. At the same time, rumors can spread very actively on the Internet, as was the case of Uighur women in Shaoguan being attacked in a Guangdong factory, which led directly to the deadly riots in Urumqi in early July.

The fundamental underpinning for China’s growth into a major locomotive of economic growth has been globalization, which until last year, was led by the US consumer sector. The problem now is that, for all practical purposes, the US consumer does not exist anymore. Basically, the US consumer had hocked its own future to the banks. Then the future arrived, and the banks put the screws to the consumer. Now, Americans are (re)learning the virtue of frugality.

Frugality and savings were a virtue which the Chinese have been well-acquainted with for a long time. Since China was dirt-poor only 30 years ago, most Chinese still know what it feels like to be poor and have squirelled away savings for a rainy day. However, more savings was not what the economy needed when the global economy tanked last year.

So, in order to keep the economy sailing smoothly, the Chinese government pumped liquidity into the economy. I have had my own doubts about the effectiveness of such a policy since much of the money has found its way into the Chinese stock markets and real estate, both of which continue to rise in defiance of their underlying business economic fundamentals, which are not that attractive. In a recent conversation with the partner of a private equity firm, I voiced my doubts. He said that in China, most of the money was going to companies, mostly state-owned, which were cash-rich. These companies really did not need more cash, but almost had it forced on them from the state-owned banks. Lacking a place to put this money which from their perspective, fell from the sky, they re-invested it in the stock market and real estate. Anyone with any investment experience in these markets is aware that the general rule for these two markets are “early in, early out”. Sure you can play, just don’t be the guy without a chair when the music stops.

The trouble with this policy is that it turns companies whose growth is based on cash flow into speculators. These companies got a windfall, and in order to protect their windfall, are encouraged to make short-term moves which basically speculative.

At the same time, this money is not going to companies and individuals who have poor credit or no credit, even though in all fairness to the government, there are smaller government policies in place to help people exchange their cars or buy electronics if they live in the countryside. The net result is that the rich/poor gap in China, which is already wide, will widen even more in the future. A society which has too wide an income differential between the rich and poor is not good for social stability in the long-term.

So, if you want to figure out who are going to be the winners and losers, all you have to do is figure out who is going to be left standing without a chair when the music stops?

It has been a long time since I last posted, for which I apologize. I won’t insult your intelligence by offering some excuses, but I will try to get back on a more regular schedule. I thank you for your understanding. If you would like to follow an unadulterated distilled real-time version of my thoughts, then I’d encourage you to follow me at twitter.com/pdenlinger

Today is the first year anniversary of the May 12 earthquake which killed an estimated 100,000, mostly in Sichuan, and causing untold damage and suffering. It also awakened the Chinese government and people to the suffering of ordinary Chinese in a way which did not happen before. I don’t have anything to add which I have not already said in the previous year, so I will offer a few links which I wrote last year.

@GregoryLent on Twitter just pointed me to this article, A User’s Guide to 21st Century Economics, by Umair Haque which I recommend highly.

After reading this article, some questions which came to mind:

• Chinese companies traditionally have not been good at adding value. How well can they adjust to the new 21st century economic situation?
• Chinese companies have been spending much on acquiring steady supplies of raw commodities. How much are they thinking of what is needed for the 21st century? Will they continue to build a twentieth century economy modeled on the American model, which is going defunct rapidly, or will they build a new development model for the 21st century?
• The 21st century development model is reliant on individual human talent and creativity, and making it possible for them to succeed. How is China going to attract the best minds in the world to China in the 21st century?

In previous articles, I have voiced some of my criticisms and predictions re globalization here, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, it is becoming clearer by the day that globalization was largely a fraud where Americans could endlessly consume and Chinese factories could endlessly manufacture without any adherence to economic fundamentals and creating a false and bloated version of prosperity and rising living standards. The brilliant minds of Wall Street came up with “risk management strategies” (irony alert) so that derivatives could endlessly build a never-ending Ponzi scheme which would go on forever and ever.

We are now entering a very painful period of unwinding of what economist Niall Ferguson called “Chimerica”. Now, China and America are entering a dangerous period of deglobalization, where they have come to the realization that after the bubble pops and the deleveraging begins, their interests are really quite different. Instead of China and America being two sides of the same economic coin, they need to play or pander to their own constituencies. The blame game will begin.

And their native constituencies are confused, hurt and angry. But they are not nearly as angry now as they will be in the near future when they have figured out what has happened to their wealth. When that happens, there will be hell to pay, and there will be blood in the streets.

The reason for this is because the leveraging which occurred is simply too big and too complicated. Taking all the bad leveraging out of the system and replacing it with cash and credit liquidity is like trying to rebuild the engines of an aircraft in flight. It cannot be done. This means that there can only be a crash.

The bright side is that crashes can be managed. You can go into a death spiral which is impossible to pull out of, but a smart pilot will look for a stretch of land and try to glide in for a crash landing. So far, the political leadership worldwide is pursuing policies which more closely follow the former path of the death spiral. This is because everyone is acting in what they perceive in their own interests, instead of keeping their heads and thinking through what needs to be done. It is a deadly panic move.

The problem is that we are now entering a phase where the crisis has spread from subprime mortgages, to derivatives, and then on to currencies. In the beginning the patient suffered from a lack of credit liquidity (constipation), so the central banks are going to provide liquidity (the enema). This did not work, and the patient has become bloated. There is the very real chance that this will eventually cause runaway inflation (dysentery) and the patient will then die of dehydration. When this happens, the currency becomes worthless and society falls apart until a new dictator imposes his will on the society, as Hitler did at the end of the Weimar Republic in Germany. In China’s case, runaway inflation led to the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek’s loss of support in the cities, and directly contributed to the establishment of the People’s Republic.

Sounds really really really bad, doesn’t it? That’s because it is.

But there are survival and prosperity strategies. I will talk about them in 2009. But you will have to be really really tough.

Gladiator movie poster

At the end of my previous post, where I painted a generally pessimistic picture of the near future, I mentioned that I would write about the businesses which would do well in this downturn.

In my opinion, they are bread and circuses.

During the decline of the Roman empire, the Roman emperors realized that in order to prevent uprisings, they needed to feed the people (bread), and to entertain them (circuses). Life was grim, ugly and short. People lived for the day. People were reduced to their most basic needs, food, sex and entertainment. Everything else was unnecessary, and most likely, did not do well as a business.

The most popular entertainment of the time in Rome were massively staged gladitorial spectacles which were fights to the death for the gladiators. When people were this miserable, they wanted to have power, if only for a moment, to see others fight to live. People were not happy, and they got pleasure and enjoyment out of what some would call sadistic entertainment (in happier times).

The Roman emperors provided a huge spectacle as an outlet for this frustration in the form of gladiator fights at the coliseum. Instead of trying to resist this angry urge, they saw that the only way out for them was to channel the urge away from them. The state rode this wave, and brought Hollywood production values and state funding to this entertainment to keep the sheeple happy. That is how they were able to extend the period of decline in the Roman Empire to 400 years instead of being overthrown much earlier.

Bread and circuses.

The times we live in will be very similar.

In China, where entertainment is already a large part of what makes up the Internet, there is already a very large entertainment component.

Historically, Chinese rulers have been experienced at putting down rebellions and uprisings, but when it came to entertainment for the masses, they could not hold a candle to the Roman emperors. On the other hand, they did not produce characters quite as twisted as Caligula and Nero either. The Roman emperors were in a league of their own.

Now, how to get state funding and production values for huge epic productions which recreate the smell, blood, excitement and drama of a real gladitorial spectacle as was captured in the movie Gladiator? Whoever can answer that question and can figure out how to bridge online games and the real world drama of life and death gladiator fights, creating a whole new experience, is in the money, not only in China, but globally.

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

One of the big problems with the present economic crisis is that we really do not know how big the problem is. We know that our problems have been caused by the creation, then over-leveraging of debt. But we don’t know how much debt was created, then sliced into derivatives multiple times which were then sold on to financial institutions all over the world.

But no one knows how much debt, then derivatives, were created by this whole process. That is the big elephant in the room which no one wants to talk about.

That makes it a good reason for me to talk about it.

We now know that a great deal of what passed for growth in the US over the past 20 years, starting with the Reagan administration, was financed by the creation of debt. Debt, by itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, it is needed for healthy growth. Companies, and countries, frequently reach stages in their growth when they need to borrow in order to reach another level of growth. When they get return from this new level of growth, they pay back and retire the debt. That is the way debt is supposed to be used.

Now, the problem which started in the US is that there was no intention to retire the debt. This was why the US Republican party pushed “deregulation” to get votes. Without deregulation, and a necessary amount of fraud, this debt mountain would not have grown as fast as they needed it to grow. Instead, the debt was sliced to ever finer parts, and sold into the global economy. Wall Street, especially its investment banks, became a mechanism for the creation, processing and sale of ever newer varieties of debt into the global economy. As long as there was growth, the system worked fine. And this is where the problem comes in: any system which can only survive when there is “growth” and cannot withstand changes and reverses in market conditions is effectively a Ponzi scheme. “Growth” becomes a means to its own ends, and becomes a necessity. When the “growth” conditions end, the system collapses.

Which is what we are going through now.

What we are going through right now is the great unwinding or deleveraging of what has happened over the past 25 years. In simple terms, the investment bank firms, and now hedge funds, and so much of the US financial industry became addicted to leveraging. Now they cannot leverage anymore, and their business model no longer works.

This raises a very interesting question which I have not seen others ask yet. That is “If debt financing and leveraging did not happen in the US, then how big would the US and global economy be?” In dollar numbers, it would be much smaller, and financial services and outsourcing would be much less important features of the US economy. There would be more manufacturing, and China would not have grown as quickly because it would not have had such a huge US export market to sell its products to. Without such fast economic growth, it is likely that the Chinese government would have had to look at social and political reforms sooner rather than later. Faster growth would have been replaced by slower more solid and more balanced growth.

China has made this problem bigger because it insisted on keeping the yuan at a lower exchange rate in order to protect its main export market, the US, addicted to Chinese exports. As I have said earlier on this blog, China and the US are two sides of the same coin. But right now, the two sides do not enjoy the same interests. The Ponzi scheme which served both sides so well no longer exists. This means that there will be recrimination and anger as each side seeks to pin the blame on the other side.

If we are ruthlessly honest about unwinding the overleveraging, I suspect that much of the world’s growth (60-75% + compounding) since the late 70s would not exist. Obviously, that is an outcome none of the world’s governments would have an interest in.

The main problem in economics is: “What is productivity, and how do we measure it?” I do not pretend to have an answer to that very challenging question, but I suspect that most of the improvements in production over the past 30 years come from improvements in information technology. These improvements in productivity mean that it is possible to create more with less people.

The real problem now is there are too many people, and most of them are not very productive in terms of adding value to an economy.

My guess is that as the unwinding continues, people will get angrier as their standards of living fall. When this happens, governments will have to choose which is worst, deflation (caused by unwinding) or inflation. Inflation has the advantage in that it can hide the real fall in living standards by gradually debasing and eroding the value the currency, but making the general populace think that they are making more money. The downside is that inflation is notoriously difficult to control. In a worst case scenario, it turns a country into an Argentinian or Brazilian basket case, where inflation becomes a routine tool for controlling the masses. More darkly, it drives the entrepreneurial class to other countries where they can make a better living for themselves and for their children.

When it does go out of control, it becomes the most powerful and deadly destroyer of wealth there is.

And that is the current situation where we are…

In my next article, I will talk about the businesses which will do well during The Great Unwinding.

Lately, there has been much discussion about Baidu’s problems re the disclosure that they were accepting payments from makers of less than consumer-friendly products for higher rankings. David Wolf has an excellent posting about how Baidu has hurt itself in the public relations battle, with some significant assistance from CCTV and Google. According to David, Google China has positioned itself to benefit from some advertisers who eschew Baidu’s former position of accepting money for high positioning, without taking a second look at some of those companies which paid for those high rankings.

On one level, Baidu is a victim of its own success. Search engines are really mapmakers: they show what’s in the neighborhood. In its early days, before Baidu became pervasive, it may have been alright to take money for businesses to show up on the map without caring too much about the reputation of the business. After all, search was a comparatively new thing, and Baidu, not yet public, wanted to grow as fast as possible, both in terms of its indexes and database, and in financial terms. But now, everyone knows what a search engine does and expects it to basically tell the truth. And if it doesn’t, they are shocked and outraged. (Whether this is real or feigned shock and outrage is another story. We’ll get into that later.) Unfortunately, Baidu’s management failed to take into account their own success, and failed to make the transition to a more open, fair, ethical and transparent model before it became a full-blown shitstorm. Making the change would have hurt the company’s earnings, something Wall St. analysts would not have taken to kindly, so they were stuck. Instead of acting proactively, they took the other path, which was waiting for something to happen to them.

And it happened.

So does this mean the beginning of the end of Baidu’s erosion as search engine market leader in China? Actually, it’s not that simple.

Ultimately, it depends on Robin Li, Baidu’s CEO, and how he chooses to handle Baidu’s salesforce, who have aggressively brought in the bacon so that Baidu would look good for its investors and Wall St. The big question for Robin Li is: “How can he rein in his salesforce just when he needs them the most?” The Baidu salesforce is the main differentiator for Baidu; it has been able to sell keywords to China’s SMEs, getting it far greater penetration than Google in the Chinese tier 2 and 3 cities and in the countryside. Can you imagine Robin calling in his salesforce and telling them to do business and background checks on customers? That would be a very good way to get your salesforce to rebel in a split-second! Can he afford such a rebellion just when global economies and markets are tanking and Chinese are cutting back on spending, and when Baidu is expanding aggressively into e-commerce and other fields?

I don’t think so.

But then, it’s a stalemate for Baidu’s salesforce too. It’s not like they can up and leave and go to Google China, taking their clients with them. Sure, Google China likes the sales numbers they generate, but they cannot accept their sales practices.

Checkmate.

That is why the only thing Baidu can do is stay quiet, and hope the crisis is soon forgotten by its SME customers, and the wider audience, and can get back to business as usual. Of course, Baidu’s challengers will do their best to keep the issue in the public spotlight as long as possible. That is what the public relations battle which is now shaping up will be all about.

Baidu’s strategy of hoping that the issue will be soon forgotten is not a good strategy, but it’s the only strategy left in the eyes of their current management. But a strategy based on hope is not really a strategy, especially when you are under attack.

It’s time for a change.

If Chinese companies were more like most publicly listed US companies, somebody would step forward and take the knife, setting the stage for widespread change in direction and a whole new team. (Except if you are one of the Big Three from Detroit or a Wall Street banker. But, for the most part, those industries are exceptions and their gravy days are over.)

And that is why Chinese companies cannot make dramatic change, just when they need it the most. And, in short, that is why Chinese companies will not become global leaders.

I have mentioned earlier that I have spent the past few months working on setting up an IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) Greater China. Recently, there have been some major developments. But before I get into those, I would like to talk about what I have learned.

IAB is set up as a non-profit business association for the digital advertising industry in each country market. Its mission is to enhance revenue growth by working with advertisers, ad agencies and media by reducing business friction. It does this by promoting standards and practices which make it easier to push out campaigns, measure results, and to optimize campaigns. Sometimes, IAB also plays a role as an industry advocate with the various governments and organizations (such as the European Union).

In China’s case, the most important issues in the near term have to do with standards for ad formats. The market is fragmented, which means that advertisers and ad agencies have to deal with multiple ad sizes, formats and naming conventions. This makes it that much more difficult for media planners and buyers and advertisers to get meaningful results from their interactive campaigns. Human energy and attention span, which are always in short supply, have to deal with mundane instead of more important practical issues.

The way IAB deals with these issues is to set up task forces and committees so that industry players can talk about, then propose standards to resolve these issues. Companies which are competitors in the marketplace first recognize the problem, then work on proposals for common standards to resolve these issues. After review and approval, they become IAB standards.

An important part of the value proposition for an IAB Greater China is to bring in a process of open discussion about standards, proposals and review for this industry. My discussions have shown to me that this is something Chinese companies would very much welcome, just as much as western companies.

In China, it’s always important to have the relevant government agencies in the loop, and I’m happy to say that after explaining what IAB does, they understand and even support its goals.

So let the process begin!

Major Developments

There has been major progress on bringing in some major players as board members and members of IAB Greater China. The paperwork has not been finished yet, so I am not free to say more, but it would be safe to say that there will be important announcements coming out soon.

November is going to be a busy month.

For the past five months, I have been researching about the feasibility of setting up an IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) in China. The IAB as a trade association was founded in the US in 1997, and has since spread to all major markets in North America and Europe where it helps to coordinate discussion and implementation of Internet advertising production standards and measurement standards for web analytics.

I have been invited as a guest of Web Analytics Wednesday to speak on the subject on Nov. 5 in Beijing. I plan to talk about what I have learned from talking to many digital companies and ad agencies, and about the progress which has been made so far. I also plan to include my own assessment of what is needed to make IAB successful in China.

If you are interested in this subject and have the time, I look forward to meeting you at the event.

UPDATE For those of you who are having trouble getting to the above link, it will be at 8PM Wednesday at Club Camp. You can get directions to Club Camp here.