The China Vortex

I recently conducted a phone interview with Handel Jones, the author of Chinamerica: The Uneasy Partnership That Will Change the World which is published by McGrawHill.

You have worked as a consultant for many years in China and the west. What motivated you to write this book?

Many Americans don’t know much about how China works, except for those who are in the business sector. Now that China has become economically powerful, it is important for more people to understand how the Chinese government and people see themselves, and their role in the world.

In your book, you mention that China needs and respects a powerful US, but if the US becomes weaker, then the relationship would become unstable and even dangerous. Why?
China has looked up to the US for a long time as a world leader, and setting the rhetoric aside, continues to have a deep respect for many things which the US has done. For example, in the area of graduate university education, Chinese continue to choose the US as their most popular destination.

In your book, you express some frustrations at recent US government policies. What are they?
Domestically, with the change in administration, we were expecting more support in the business sector. However, for small businesses, there has been more regulation and more taxation. This has hurt the overall competitiveness of US businesses. This is in comparison to the Chinese government’s policies, which have been to support Chinese businesses and exports, especially state-owned enterprises.

What is your feeling about the competitiveness of US businesses?
I believe that US management practices, generally speaking, are the best in the world. It also has the best business managers in the world. This is why the US has world leaders and brands such as HP, Apple, Boeing, just to name a few. However, there is little understanding on the government policy level as to how to leverage these American strengths as most US politicians are too absorbed with domestic issues so that they can win the next election.

How is this different from the Chinese government’s worldview and their policies?
When China’s reforms started thirty years ago, China worked from a very weak base. Just about the only thing it had a was a large pool of unskilled labor and some smart leaders. They leveraged this base to obtain key technologies and become a manufacturer and exporter, while giving away as little as possible. To this day, it is virtually impossible for any non-Chinese company to gain access to the Chinese market without being forced to give access to key technologies, which often find their way to Chinese competitors. This is a source of frustration to virtually all non-Chinese companies.

Many US and western policymakers say that China needs to revalue the yuan upwards. What do you think?
Instead of putting pressure on China to revalue the yuan, it’s more important to put pressure on China to open up its markets to foreign-made goods, so that they are treated the same as goods made domestically in China. Non-Chinese manufacturers should not be pressured to hand over their technology to gain access to the Chinese market.

What does the US need to do to become competitive again?
Over the past few decades, US government policy has become more short-sighted, and Wall St. has reacted by creating debt instruments which were speculative in nature, instead of being investment-oriented. However, the US still has strengths in areas such as medical research, energy technology, and other leading areas. China and the US need to work together in developing these new fields of research and manufacture.

How do you see leverage between China and the US changing over the next decade?
If the US government does not wake up and change its policies to support the US business sector and investment, it will continue to lose leverage to China. This is not good for either country. This is why I wrote the book; I want Americans and the west to wake up to this real challenge, and understand the importance of our changing our own policies so that our relationship with China will become more complementary instead of potentially antagonistic. China is looking to the US for enlightened leadership, and it is time that the US government delivered, not only for its own good, but for world stability.

What hidden threats do you see to China’s leadership?
Chinese state-owned enterprises may become too powerful and greedy, leaving too little for others. This may lead to the abuse of power, which would lead to instability. So far, the Chinese government has done well at keeping these abuses in check.

In conclusion, how would you say China has performed over the past thirty years?
The Chinese government has been very smart in the way it has utilized resources to gain benefit for China. It has shown that it is not a pushover like Japan was in the late 80s. It thinks in big terms, and has a clear strategy for what it wants to do, but it is willing to be flexible in what tactics it uses to achieve those goals. I plan to write more about this in my next book on Chinese strategems.

When an ailing computer company which has lost a lot of its shine teams up with one of the leading ad agency groups, WPP, to form a new marketing agency called DaVinci to spend $4.5B in marketing money, I am, naturally, more than a little skeptical.

Consolidating adspend under one roof makes sense sometimes; it made sense for IBM in the nineties when it chose my former employer, Ogilvy, also a part of WPP, to handle all its accounts. IBM was able to consolidate its image, and Lou Gerstner, then IBM’s CEO was able to make a dramatic turnaround and a nice exit for himself.

More than 10 years later though, the challenge for Dell is more complex. Dell is a company which has surpassed at squeezing costs out of the system, making cheap computers for the office masses. The problem now for Dell is that it is getting challenged on this front by Lenovo, the Chinese computer manufacturing giant and Acer, the Taiwan company which has made a dramatic comeback after a near-death experience. And then there is the US giant, HP, which is doing some very interesting stuff.

When it comes to buzz, Apple sets the bar. After switching to Intel architecture, then using the iPod as a platform to generate buzz for the iPhone globally, Apple is on a roll. Dell has been left in the dust. Add to that recent customer complaints about quality, and Dell is not in a good situation.

So can DaVinci turn things around for Dell?

My initial reaction is that it doesn’t go far enough; it is made up of Dell and WPP people, and can serve as a buffer to any agency conflicts. But the problems which afflict Dell run much deeper than just quality problems.

They are management and perception problems.

One of the big problems marketing people run into is how to turn a product which is a stinker into something which people want to buy. The Internet has made the challenge even greater, because anyone who has the time, motivation and interest can find anything about a product.

It doesn’t matter how you spin a turd, when it stops spinning, it’s still a turd.

The problem is that once a company starts thinking that it’s all about an agency, or it’s all about the creative, the ground is set to place the marketing people and agency as the fall guys, when actually the problem is with bad management decisions. Then as the management panics because of falling share price, bad buzz, and everything else, their decisions get increasingly short-sighted and the options get worse and worse. When the management starts thinking in these terms, the company is basically in a death spiral; it’s all ends when it hits the ground and bursts into flames.

The problem with Dell is that they are very good at cutting costs, but they have not shown customers how they can ADD value. So naturally, Dell attracts the customers which are at the bottom of the value chain. Dell’s management has effectively commoditized their own product line. This is never a wise thing to do. If your own products have effectively become commodities, how do you position them against anything else?

The answer is you can’t.

Cutting internal manufacturing and component costs is something every computer maker should do internally, but you never want to make it the message you tell your customers and IT departments.

For the past several months, I have been debating what I should get for my next computer. It has been a match between the Santa Rosa Macbook Pro and the HP 2710p. The 2710p is a Tablet PC and has received some excellent reviews. It was the only PC I have been seriously considering.

Why? Because I have never owned a Tablet PC, and it looked like it had reached the right balance of functionality and design. Other HP lines, Dell and the other PC makers never entered the equation.

HP obviously likes the 2710p a lot, they have made it the centerpiece of a TV ad campaign in Asia.

That is why I say that the integration of Dell and WPP do not go deep enough. Instead of trying to flog a lot of commodity products which the market has tired of, instead they should think of how to come up with new products and a product line which actually make a person excited. We’re not talking about marketing anymore; we’re talking design marketing, the kind of stuff Apple excels at.

They should start with one product, then take it to a product line, then expand it, then kill all the boring stuff. Just like Apple did with the iPod, which expanded into the iPhone line.

Of course, in order to do all that, you need to be a dictator like Steve Jobs. The question is whether Michael Dell can be that kind of dictator, even if his own name is on the line.