The China Vortex

One of the things which I frequently hear from first-time visitors to China is that “It is so big!” Sometimes, I hear this even from Texans, an American state which takes pride in being bigger than almost any other state, with the exception of Alaska.

Westerners are not the only ones to fall victim to this thinking; Chinese also are enamored with these numbers. When I hear presentations, the most frequently heard numbers show 420 million mobile phone subscribers, 250 million IM subscribers, at which point the China virgins go gaga and start counting the yuan they are going to make (in their dreams) and planning their retirements (also in their dreams).

By now, I’m sure that you’ve figured out that I don’t buy into this view. Yes, China is big, but so what?

Instead, when you start looking at real revenue and earnings numbers, China is still way down there. And for many companies, both Chinese and western, it’s a difficult nut to crack.

But I don’t think that it needs to be. First of all, let’s get past the population and subscriber numbers. Yes, they are very big, and the only country which can even come close is India. All the thoughts, fantasies and conversation about projections should end there, and marketers should dig deeper to look at revenue and earnings projections, since they are the only real numbers which count.

Marketing 101 says that it isn’t the size of your market and number of units sold, it’s really all about your margins and accessories you can continue to cross-sell or up-sell to your customers after the initial sale. There is the often quoted example of “give away the razor, and sell the razor blades (where you really make the money).”

Since my field is the Internet, I frequently come across all kinds of interesting ideas where Chinese entrepreneurs are seeking funding. Let’s say that I’ve seen a lot of ideas in my lifetime, and I’m picky about what strikes my fancy. When I talk to people, I’m often looking for a “je ne sais quoi” which is different about them, or their products and services, and their ability to execute. China subscriber and user numbers don’t impress me, and make my eyes glaze over very quickly.

I’m much more impressed when people talk about revenue and earnings projections. I’m even more impressed when I find out that these numbers are not pulled out of thin air, and can relate to something the presenter/entrepreneur has worked on and delivered in the past. At this point, we cross the line from fantasy to a doable reality.

The trouble with many Chinese startups is that the founder is so focused on raising money that he forgets to even spin a good story about what he’s going to do with the money! And yet, China is such a hot place to be now that there are people with money who are willing to part with significant amounts of money without even asking for a good story about how they are going to execute!

Part of the reason so many poor ideas get funded is because the burn rate is so low in China that even if the startup fails in the initial stage, the burn can be kept so low that if/when the startup founder has to do a reboot (usually by coming up with a sensible idea), that there is still money left in the till for a repositioning and second chance. In reality though, I think that this is a bad strategy for investors. After all, if the founder/s did not come up with a good idea the first time, and it got funded, what is the incentive for him to come up with a good idea the second time around?

This is why countries like the US and Sweden and other countries continue to be competitive in the Internet startup field even though their initial startup costs and burn rate are much higher than in China. Being cheap and being good are too entirely different things, and often being cheap actually prevents you from being good because it allows, and even encourages, sloppy thinking and poor execution skills.

This is not healthy for the western investors and for the Chinese. This is a sign of a bubble, and is oddly reminiscent of that situation in the US just a few short years ago when many people thought that they could buy a house without a down payment and a job. Fortunately for China, the Internet sector is still a relatively small part of the economy, and while US and western funds may eventually come up $50 billion or so shorter in a few years, it won’t be significant enough to put a crimp in any venture capitalist’s or private equity fund manager’s retirement plans.

What is needed now, at least in the Internet startup area, are entrepreneurs who have actually had experience selling something, and actually understand the purchasing habits of Chinese consumers, and know how to provide a useful service to earn that money and are willing to put revenue projections into their pitches.

There are plenty of opportunities and China is still a big market. I can think of several things right off the bat.

But let’s stop talking population and subscribers, and start talking revenue and earnings, shall we?

Technorati Tags: alaska, burnrate, China, Chinese, earnings, economy, entrepreneurs, founders, funding, im, marketing, mobilephone, privateequity, projections, revenue, startups, sweden, texas, US, venturecapital

In technology marketing parlance, the three screens refer to the television screen, the PC screen and the mobile phone screen. Most marketers and advertisers now recognize that more eyeballs and viewing time are going to the PC screen, and even more will soon go to the mobile phone screen, and the question they are asking is “When will advertising on the PC and mobile phone catch up with advertising on the television?”

This is a question which Kaiser Kuo, publisher of Ogilvy China Digital Watch, asked in his article “Closing the Marketing Gap”. To quote from his article:

The “Marketing Confidence Gap.” That’s Ogilvy parlance for that vexing and persistent chasm between, on the one hand, the high percentage of media time spent by the average consumer online and, on the other, the relatively low percentage of overall ad budgets being directed online.

Kaiser then goes on to point out that when TV was the disruptive new technology, advertisers most likely ran into the same kinds of complaints from what were then mainstream media buyers (print and radio). And that it took some time for the new advertising models for TV to take off and then reach a new equilibrium of general acceptance. The new medium created its own new business ecosystem with the most well-known being the television market research firm AC Nielsen.

The three screens model throws the old model of TV advertising into question. For many video watchers on the PC, the main appeal of watching videos on Youtube or Tudou is because they can watch them anytime, without advertising. Contrast this with the old broadcast model of the 1960s in the US, dominated by ABC, NBC, and CBS and a few affiliate networks. In the 1970s, cable TV began to take off; it did not have any advertising and relied exclusively on subscriptions. Then in the 80s, satellite news (CNN) took off. So the good old days were not really as quiet and stable as some would have us believe.

This is why the relationship between time spent online and advertising does not hold water for me. There is no rule which says that the correlations which applied to the first screen of television should also apply to the second and third screens of the PC and the mobile phone. I would go so far as to argue that disk and broadband prices have dropped so low that the traditional ad agency role of playing matchmaker to ad inventory (advertisers) and media (publishers) have disappeared. My opinion is that the only place where there is any meaningful and measurable matchup of ad inventory and media are done online is with search ad results, with Google the leader in most of the world and Baidu in China.

This is why I think Sam Flemming’s talk about Internet Word of Mouth (IWOM) has hit an important vein which the ad agency’s have failed to grasp. It is an uncontested fact that while e-commerce in China has been slow to take off in China, many Chinese look for information about purchases beforehand by visiting BBSes and seeing what others say about a product. So why is there no way to track the main influencers of buying decisions and rewarding them with money if their recommendation results in a completed sale? To me, this has always seemed like a difficult, but not insurmountable, technical challenge. In the west, there would be complaints about people making recommendations because they want to make money instead of actually having tried and used the product, but in China, I don’t believe that those disputes would be likely to arise.

China has a unique retail phenomenon called tuangou 团购. This is groups of individuals and families who meet each other in the BBSes and who are planning on purchasing the same big-ticket items. Then, they go and negotiate volume discounts with individual retailers, eventually selecting the retailer who gives the biggest discounts. I have never heard of this phenomenon anywhere outside China.

There are plenty of opportunities in China; it’s just a question of how you see the challenge.

Technorati Tags: abc, advertising, cbs, China, iwom, marketing, mobilephone, nbc, ogilvy, PC, retailers, television

Last night (Sept. 3) I attended the Mobile Users Panel held by Mobile Monday in Beijing. This event was held at the Radisson Hotel. This event was the evening part of the Wireless Developer Forum sponsored by Sony Ericsson and Nokia.

I always like to listen to how users use new technology products and services. There are a lot of very smart technology and business people who, at the beginning of a project, have all kinds of ideas of what they are going to build into the next killer app. Then, when they test the product on a focus group, they are always humbled by the experience. I call this phenomena “the revenge of the user”.

Mobile Monday assembled a four-person panel: one 25 year-old research student (technology) from Chongqing and who had lived in Beijing for the past seven years; one 18-year old high-school student who called himself Rico, and appeared anxious to test his fairly good English on the audience; one 25 year-old female math teacher in high school and one 30+ tech startup guy. Because the 25 year-old researcher and the startup founder knew more about technology, I tended to discount their views, and was much more interested in how the 18 year-old high school student (Rico) and the 25 year-old female math teacher used their mobile phones.

Benjamin Joffe, CEO and founder of Plus8star, presented the questions, and a female co-host did the English-Chinese translation work.

The 25 year-old researcher spent about 150 yuan on service charges per month, and was a subscriber to China Mobile’s M-Zone service package, which is targeted at youth. He made about 10 calls daily, and received 20-30 SMS messages daily.

Rico also subscribed to the M-Zone package, which offered 800 SMS messages monthly. He would send about 40 SMS messages daily, which would suggest that even 800 SMS messages a month is not enough for him. He used a Samsung phone; previously he had used Nokia phones. Although he was only 18, this was already his 10th phone, which seemed to cause a gasp in the audience, and Benjamin Joffe did a double-take when he heard this.

The 25 year-old female teacher also used the China Mobile M-Zone service, but also used PHS service at home because of the low monthly charges. Her use was much lighter than Rico.

When it came to services used, Rico said that he had once used China Unicom, but the monthly charges had gone up to 300 yuan a month, and he had cancelled. The rate he seemed most comfortable was in the region of 150 yuan monthly.

Aside from the 25 year-old researcher, all had more than one phone and one SIM card.

Benjamin Joffe asked all of them if they knew about 3G. Rico said that he didn’t know the details, but that he thought that it meant there would be higher quality services at lower prices. All said that they occasionally played casual mobile games and never expected to pay for them. This would suggest that entertainment on the mobile platform is headed for an advertising model.

It became most interesting when Benjamin asked what single feature they would like their next phones to have. The answer from both the female teacher and Rico were maps. Rico suggested that he would also like GPS so that he could find his way around. The female teacher recounted how she got lost meeting her class one day on a day trip, and how helpful it would have been to her to have a mapping service; she said that it would have prevented her from being some 10 minutes late to meet her class.

Maps and mapping are still sensitive government-regulated issues in China, and it will be interesting to see how the different regulatory ministries will reach consensus on how to offer these services.

My conclusions are:

• It will be very difficult to monetize mobile content in the next 2-3 years because of government regulatory hurdles and a generally challenging environment.
• While China is a very big market in the mobile and Internet space, users are still very price-sensitive. Most teenage urban users would cap their monthly subscriptions at 150 yuan, and 300 yuan would be a ceiling for most salaried people. (Rico was spending his parent’s money; and I assumed that working people would be willing to spend up to 300 yuan of their own income on monthly mobile services.)
• Just because someone likes a service a lot does not mean that they are willing to pay for it, so please remove those rose-tinted glasses and stop fantasizing about the “China market” is my advice to those entering the Chinese market.
• Mapping and GPS on mobile phones are the killer app, but are currently regulated by different Chinese government ministries. Currently, there are still no standard published APIs for accessing an online mapping service. A lot of horse trading will happen before everything gets sorted out on the government level. When that is done, advertisers will have to figure out how to monetize maps and GPS services, which involves yet another round of horse trading.
• The times when telcos and their partners were fantasizing about people spending kajillions of dollars, yuan and yen on mobile services will be hit hard by the expanding credit crisis. I expect users worldwide to put fairly solid ceilings on their discretionary spending, at least in the US. In China, the government may further slow down credit expansion since they have already seen what fast credit expansion has done in the markets of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, where there are swathes of the local populations which have become victims of their monthly credit card payments.
• The ultimate measure of how much users spend on mobile services is ARPU (average revenue per user). While China is much larger than Japan in population and market size, the amount of revenue generated by the telcos in the two countries are about the same. It’s going to be a long long time before the average Chinese user spends nearly the same amount on mobile services as the current Japanese user does.

Technorati Tags: averagerevenueperuser, China, chinamobile, japan, mapping, maps, mobilemonday, mobilemondaybeijing, mobilephone, plus8star, sms