The China Vortex

Paul Midler is an experienced sourcing expert who has worked in China for many years, and publishes The China Game blog. I believe that he is the first person to coin the term “quality fade”. Quality fade is, according to this article published in Forbes:

This is the deliberate and secret habit of widening profit margins through a reduction in the quality of materials. Importers usually never notice what’s happening; downward changes are subtle but progressive. The initial production sample is fine, but with each successive production run, a bit more of the necessary inputs are missing.

It seems a long time ago, but last year, a great deal of ink was devoted to covering the issue of defective products from China. In some cases, lives were lost in the US.

If I have one criticism of Paul Midler’s criticism of this very real problem, it is the impression it gives that somehow unscrupulous Chinese exporters are deliberately seeking to cheat and harm Americans, when in fact, many more Chinese have been injured and even killed by defective products coming out of Chinese factories. It’s just that the US media does not pick up these stories because the victims are, well, Chinese.

But if we are going to be fair about this problem, then shouldn’t we talk about the Chinese and other non-American victims of this problem as well? I think so.

Now, when it comes to the credit bubble problem, the issue of quality fade becomes even more interesting. This time, the culprit is not Chinese, but American. For a problem of such immense proportions, which is getting bigger and bigger by the day, amazingly, no one has identified the human culprits responsible for the bad decisions. But then, accountability never been a strong point for this US administration.

In China, when there was a problem with deaths caused by tainted drugs, the head of the Chinese Food and Drug Administration was sentenced to death and executed. No one yet knows the size of the credit bubble, but I have heard numbers from $15 billion to $45 billion bandied about. Mind you, the US economy is a US$12 trillion a year economy, so we are basically talking about anywhere from 1 year to four years of economic output disappearing.

Americans are losing their jobs, many are losing their homes, and the Fed has been scared into a series of panic interest rate cuts and into subsidizing the purchase of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase and offering a Fed-backed unlimited credit lending facility to US investment banks.

In this article from The Washington Note, Steve Clemons talks about how the US exported poisoned financial products.

So, while Chinese factories have on occasion exported defective products, the US has exported defective financial products. And the US government participated because Treasury sold T-bills which were backed by these defective financial instruments.

Hmmm….

Now, back to quality fade. Let’s see if we can modify his definition of quality fade to capture the credit bubble situation:

This is the deliberate and secret habit of creating the illusion of increased purchasing power through the creation of fiat credit derivatives of dubious value. Exporters usually never notice what’s happening; downward changes are subtle but progressive. The initial credit derivatives are fine, but with each passing year, lose their value as more credit derivatives are created until there is a gradual collapse and new currencies and trading rules have to be established.

(The italics are where I have made changes to Paul Midler’s original text.)

When it comes to quality fade, the Americans have been wholesalers, while the Chinese are just occasional retailers.

Technorati Tags: China, credit, currencies, derivatives, economy, financial, globalization, instruments, lending, mortgage, products, qualityfade, subprime, trade, US

One of the great challenges in the digital world is: “How to create value?” People are spending more and more time online, and are moving to a mobile Internet, which has been attested to by the success of Apple’s iPhone platform. But spending online has lagged behind, especially in China, where advertising has been slow to take off.

Obviously there is something wrong with this picture. What can be done to bring value to people, and are companies looking in the wrong places?

Advertising has been established in the west for more than a century, but it has been much slower to take off in China. There are several reasons for this: for one thing, after having been a strictly socialist society for nearly thirty years, there really wasn’t much of an ad industry in China in the period from 1949 to 1977. A consumer society did not exist, and Chinese citizens did not have many choices. There was the hukou system which meant that Chinese citizens could get enough of what they needed, but only if they were in the right city, and only enough to take care of their basic necessities.

After 1977, when China started to open up, the ad industry had to basically build up from almost nothing. Now, in 2008, it is one of the few markets where ad revenue is growing by leaps and bounds. In the west, many companies are questioning the effectiveness of advertising in the face of the growing power and effectiveness of the Internet and its poster boy for online advertising, Google.

Still though, there is plenty of room for alternative business models. In 1999, while Yahoo! was earning a great deal of ad revenue from banner ads, Chinese companies had to look for alternative business models which were grounded in how Chinese were willing to accept value, and were willing to pay for it with real money.

Tencent, the creator of the fabulously successful QQ IM client, has probably the most successful virtual currency in the world, Q-Coins (in Chinese, Q-bi, it means “Q currency”). Since its introduction, it has become a fabulously successful currency which has its own currency exchange rate, and is bought and sold offline. In short, to many Chinese, it is a real currency with value. This is a case of something which was created in the virtual world, was deemed to have value, and then taken into the offline world.

This leads to a very interesting question for social networks: If Q Coins have been so successful as an online social currency for transactions among community members in China, then why haven’t the western SNS sites such as Facebook, Friendster, etc. created their own currencies which their own members could use worldwide? And why should there not be a secondary market for trading these virtual currencies among themselves, and then with real currencies?

Ogilvy China Digital Watch has done an excellent job of keeping an eye on the development of online advertising in China. But I have a question: “If the volume of online currency denominated transactions were added to digital adspend in China, how would that compare to how much is spent on online advertising in America?”

Could it be that in fact China is already a leader in bringing online-created goods and services to the offline world, and is ahead of the west?

Who knows, maybe the answer for a global ad agency like Ogilvy would be to issue its own virtual currency and to get as many people worldwide to use it as possible?

Now that would be a twist!

Technorati Tags: advertising, banners, businessmodels, China, currencies, google, ogilvy, online, q-coins, qq, US, virtual, yahoo