The China Vortex

I am a fan of Apple’s products. I believe that the hardware is well-designed, and so is the software. In particular, I believe that the design philosophy behind Objective-C and Cocoa frameworks are the best thought-out and implemented tools for any developer looking for a strong and robust environment for object-oriented programming.

Like other Apple fans, I get excited at the new hardware the company puts out on a regular basis. I have reconciled myself to the fact that the top-of-the-line Macbook Pro I now use will shortly be replaced by a newly refreshed iteration of this line, and I will soon torment myself when I see others with their newer computers. The sames goes for my iPod touch.

I am also a fan of Steve Jobs; he shows what can be done by a very smart guy who has fallen down a few times in life who now has a good plan, and who just focuses on implementing his plan. The guy knows exactly what he wants, and doesn’t let anyone or anything get in the way of his plans. He is the poster boy for a smart authoritarian and autocratic management in an organization. I’m convinced that without a firm grasp of the challenges the company faced in 1997, Apple would have quickly gone into bankruptcy.

Steve Jobs saved Apple.

This is why I get upset with the company’s policies towards China. I mean, for Apple to criticize the Chinese government for not being open and nice to minorities is just completely wide of the mark.

With this in mind, let me show you how the Chinese government, in comparison to Apple’s management, is in fact much more open and democratic:

• China now has a group leadership on the national level. Who is in the group leadership at Apple? And how much do you see others besides Steve Jobs talking about “different directions” at Apple?
• Who is going to be the successor to President Hu Jintao. I can name several candidates including Xi Jinping, Bo Xilai, Zhou Yongkang, just to name a few. Who is going to succeed Steve Jobs? I can’t name any.
• Leaking any information about any new products which have not yet been announced at Apple are grounds for immediate dismissal. Same goes for China.
• Apple employees are not allowed to publish unofficial blogs without company permission. Doing so may be grounds for dismissal. China has 100 million blogs; all of them are unofficial.
• In private meetings with Steve Jobs and Apple senior and executive management, the senior and executive management turn and look to Steve Jobs for permission to speak before speaking, even when they are addressed directly. The Chinese national government leadership is more relaxed than Steve about other senior officials speaking about national affairs.
• For many Apple employees, the most dreaded moment is sharing the same elevator ride with Steve. If he talks to them and he asks what they do, and they go not give a good response, he just might terminate them.

Basically, Apple (the company) is an extension and implementation of one man’s (Steve Jobs) vision of what the consumer electronics and computing industry should look like. And ironically, laws in the US permit Steve Jobs to run his company in a very autocratic fashion. I have not yet heard of people being “dismissed” from China because they were not productive according to one ruler’s definition. On the contrary, the Chinese government goes out of its way to keep the Chinese economy on a growth track, creating more jobs. (I must admit that I think many of these jobs are of questionable value, but that’s another discussion.)

And yet, Apple doesn’t like things the Chinese government does because they are less than democratic and are autocratic? How many current Apple employees do you see protesting at the way the company is run? I’ll tell you how many there are.

Zero, nada, zilch.

Sure, Steve Jobs is running a company and the Chinese government is running a country, but is there anything to suggest that Steve would act any differently and suddenly become open and democratic if he were running a country?

Come on Steve, look in the mirror. When it comes to autocracy, the Chinese government can’t hold a candle to you.

I’m really trying to wrap my mind around this and am trying very very hard to understand Apple’s criticisms of China. If anyone can explain this to me, I’m all ears.

If you are one of the estimated 800,000+ iPhone users in China, then there is a more than 99% chance that your iPhone is cracked since Apple does not yet have a carrier partner in China.

For many of those users, there is the fear that once Apple ties up with a Chinese carrier and starts offering the iPhone3G in China, their first-generation iPhone will become an iBrick because it will not be recognized by the Chinese carrier and/or Apple, and there will be no upgrade path. (Apple and Steve Jobs are kind of famous for not particularly caring about background compatibility and upgrade paths. If you’re screwed, you’re screwed.)

Fortunately, Matt Cutts of Google has posted an article on his blog called “5 Steps to Upgrade From a Hacked iPhone To and iPhone3G”. The article is written for an American audience, but there is no reason why it could not apply to an iPhone user in China (or anywhere else).

The good news is that your first-generation iPhone will not become an iBrick, and you can likely sell it on Taobao. The bad news is in step two: there’s no way you can avoid spending money on another cool device from Apple.

UPDATE:One week after its release, the iPhone3G has been pwned (that’s geekspeak for cracked). So do you want to go legit or are you hardcore for open? It’s your call.

Chang-Won Kim, who publishes the Web 2.0 Asia blog, recently commented on my article about China’s BBSes, and questioned whether the BBS would indeed become the future of social media in China.

Here is what Mr. Kim says:

In short, the article said:
Much of Chinese internet = BBS
Often the Chinese “group thoughts/activities”, such as the recent (rather unfortunate) “Angry Chinese” incidents, get organized on these BBSes
Chinese’ love of BBS might have come from distrust of traditional media
Outsiders have not figured this out
But the very last part of the article kind of made me scratch my head:
So, BBSes are the real social media marketing tool, and as usual, the Chinese are ahead of everyone else, but just haven’t figured out that part themselves. While the west talks about social media and Web 2.0, China has had a version of it for the past ten years. It may not be pretty, but it works.

Does the fact that BBS is so popular in China today mean a) BBS is the right platform for social media and b) BBS will remain as popular in China for the coming years? I’m not very sure about that, at least using the Korean market as a “canary in coal mine” example.

a) Is BBS the right platform for social media?

If we define “social media” as the collection of unique, diversified individual voices, I don’t think BBS is the optimal platform for social media activities - on the contrary, BBSes can often lead to group thoughts and monoculture, where the agenda is largely driven by big voices.

b) Will BBS remain popular in China for the coming years?

In Korea, we have a popular BBS/forum service in “Daum Cafe”. Three or four years ago, Daum cafe was arguably THE most popular service for Korean netizens. Today, Daum Cafes are still doing pretty okay I guess, but are definitely not the most popular daily web destination as they once used to be. Over the last several years, Daum Cafe has given much way first to minihompies, and later to blogs.

The problem of Daum Cafe as a BBS-type service was that it wasn’t as much focusing on individuals. On BBSes and forums, usually it’s difficult to keep track of the messages users left on different spaces and the subsequent comments left by other users. It’s also difficult to put one’s personal identity to the page that collects all his postings (”My page”), just like a contributor’s personal page on Wikipedia is rarely visited (many people don’t even know such pages exist). People like group activities too, but basically people are individualistic. Users want to have “their own site” where they have all their content under a specific URL which they can use as personal brands.

I would like to stress that I don’t think of the BBS as the future of social media, I can’t see that far ahead. But along with IM clients like QQ and MSN, it certainly does bring in the highest amount of traffic volume on the Internet in China. And regrettably, it is, for the most part, neglected by marketers and journalists for gathering information on what Chinese are thinking and talking about.

Mr. Kim freely admits to using the Korean market as a reference point for his conjecture about how the Chinese market may develop, talking first about how Daum was very popular as a BBS in Korea several years ago, but has now fallen off in popularity. He seems to suggest that the popularity of BBSes will eventually fall off in China; it’s just that no one quite knows what will replace it. He also suggests that BBSes are subject to “groupthink” much more than blogs, which are more about individual expression. As Chinese society becomes more open and individualistic, he suggests, then the need for BBSes will gradually fade.

I would beg to differ.

I think of BBSes as the electronic equivalent of the town square. The town square is always the place where people would go to gossip, share information, and shop. This is what most Chinese do when they go to the BBS. Sometimes they are looking for specific information about buying a home or a car, there are BBSes for this. Other times they are looking to complain about something unfair happening to them, there are BBSes for this. And so forth and so on.

Then sometimes, the BBS is the place where they turn to when they are unhappy with something, such as the recent issues with the Olympic torch relay and Tibet demonstrations in the west. When this happens, the BBS is where they turn to in order to vent their personal feelings because, for the most part, there is less Chinese government influence in the private BBSes and they can speak and organize more freely. When this happens the BBSes become the digital Tiananmen Square, places where the Chinese gathered to show their displeasure on two occasions in the 70s and 80s.

Now, instead of going to Tiananmen Square, they go to their BBSes.

China now has the largest number of blogs in the world, and blogs are the venue for personal expression. With more than 25M Chinese blogs, they are not short of opportunities for personal expression. I tend to think of social networks like Facebook and Xiaonei as social networks for people who want to meet others, but don’t have enough to say to maintain a blog. Instead, they provide a wealth of information about themselves, hoping to link up with others who may find them interesting and appealing, and to find others with shared interests.

Mr. Kim seems to suggest that since South Korea is more developed and more open as a society than China, the Chinese Internet will eventually follow developments in South Korea. While China has closely followed some South Korean trends such as online gaming and in mobile devices, there are some areas where it is still very different.

For one thing, South Koreans seem much more willing to reveal their true names and identities online than Chinese. Cyworld, a fantasy world where virtual tools can be made and sold, was a huge success in South Korea, but it failed miserably in China.

In every case, the Internet closely mirrors the values of a society, and the choices it makes. The choices made by Chinese are still very different from South Koreans. It remains to be seen whether they will more closely resemble each other, or grow further apart. I suspect that they will grow further apart as their societies develop differently.

For most people, blogs are no longer exciting as they were in 2002, when they first burst on the scene. Part of the reason for this is because although the technology for blogging is mature, an economic model for bloggers has not really taken hold. This is especially the case in China, where there are a huge number of bloggers and the Internet has become hugely popular, but the economic rationale has not yet appeared. Several years ago, there was a lot of talk and conjecture about a long tail, and idea which Chris Anderson made popular with his book, The Long Tail.

Unfortunately in China, the long tail looks like a Manx cat. (The Manx is a variety of cat which is born tailless.)

Recently there has been much discussion in the US about the value of ad networks. The economic rationale for ad networks is simple: they buy unsold inventory and place ads in them so that no ads go unsold. Better to place ads anywhere than to have them wasted, right?

Not so fast, says Jason Calacanis. Quoting from ESPN’s recent tough statement banishing ad networks, he says that “the use of ad nets diminishes the value of their (clients’) brand and content by spreading it so widely, ultimately threatening existing relationships with advertisers”.

In his article, Calacanis argues that for that medium-sized publishers, they should take on the costs and responsibility of their own ad sales networks to sell their own inventory, instead of outsourcing to an outside ad network. He argues that a real publisher is in control of three things:

• Your writers
• Your readers
• Your advertisers

Moreover, he puts numbers behind his definition of a mid-sized publisher. If you have more than $250,000 in ad sales, you should hire your own dedicated sales person.

His advice is that if you are a mid-sized publisher:

1. Hire three ad sales people
2. Spend 50% of your time going to ad meetings and conferences
3. Kick out your ad networks and use something simple like Google Adsense to take up your backfill

Another article about how Gawker Media pays their writers left me even more interested in how these numbers would translate for China. Gawker writers are not paid a salary, but simply get an “advance” against pageviews. Basically they have to hit their pageview numbers if they are going to do well. Moreover, these numbers are public.

This raises a really interesting question: How would these US numbers for pageviews and traffic volume translate to make sense in China? And could it be that blog ad networks in China have held down bloggers’ salaries by providing low quality untargeted traffic, and the only way to turn the situation around is to have publishers build their own ad sales teams in-house instead of relying on outsiders to sell their ad inventory so that they can pay their writers a working wage?

I suspect that the answer is “yes”, because only a publisher has the best sense and feel for their own content and audience. Ironically, it could well be that ad sales for medium-sized networks are something which cannot be sold best over the Internet.

Now, that would be a change, wouldn’t it?

Ever since its publication, The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell, has captured the imagination of marketers and PR people all over the world. Basically, the book argues that ideas are spread by different groups of people, and that some have more influence than others in helping an idea to spread.

For marketers and PR people, the book basically argues that there is a formula for success; just feed your client’s idea or product into this ecosystem, and you can come up with a very predictable result. It’s almost like a software engineer’s dream: given a certain input, then a process, there is a predictable outcome. The marketer/PR agency can argue that the amount of money spent forms a direct correlation with the input, and if a project fails to take fire, it’s because the client didn’t spend enough money. As a result, the right connectors could not be influenced, and the project failed.

This is known as Influentials theory and forms the backbone of much marketing practice.

All clear and simple, right?

I have always had my doubts about it. For one thing, the model fails to take into account what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. And it fails to explain how people decide what is a good idea worth transmitting to one’s network, and what is a bad idea which should be immediately dismissed or ignored. If you were a Google engineer, how would you write an algorithm to describe how these very human and subjective individual judgements are made?

It seems to me that it is impossible to write an algorithm to describe them. What an engineer can do though, is plot how ideas are spread in a time when we are bombarded with more and more information, making our attention spans progressively shorter.

Wouldn’t there come a point when influence becomes almost random, when Influentials lose most of their influence? And doesn’t this coincide with the breakdown of the “mass market”, a concept which has collapsed with the rise of the social networking phenomenon and the long tail?

I had long suspected this, but I had never been able to prove the thesis. However, the results of some serious research by Duncan Watts supports this thesis. In this article published in Fast Company, his experiments suggest that the success of many fads has become, for all practical purposes, random. The article is an excellent read.

For one thing, I believe that The Tipping Point was written too long ago, and it described a world vastly different from ours in 2008. When it was published in 2002, the book described a time when people still read paper newspapers and books and before blogs. You may remember a term then called the “mass media”.

Now, ideas spread much faster, and within smaller groups which may appear random. It is also very likely that products/services/ideas will be served to much smaller groups of people.

One example is the gaming industry where the shelf life of titles has become progressively shorter, almost to the point where the marketing industry has trouble keeping up with the shorter time cycles. Hollywood movies have to prove their box-office success in their opening weekend in the US. These two industries have yet to adapt to lower production expense models which fit in with the lower shelf-life of their titles.

Basically, they need to downsize their costs.

If you boil it down to essentials, it means that you will have to market your ideas/products/services yourself, since you know your own audience best and understand how to pitch it to them. If they like what you have to say/sell, then they will become your connectors, and push it beyond your immediate circle, creating a breakout phenomenon.

In the end, the Internet empowers smart generalists who understand technology and keep the human touch in their marketing. Dumb messages may have short-time entertainment appeal, but they are unlikely to be profitable unless there is something behind them.

And marketing cannot buy credibility.