The China Vortex

The biannual China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) report covering the first half of 2008 has been released (in Chinese) and is now available. The Ogilvy China Digital Watch website has provided an excellent job of capturing the main points in English. The most salient point of the report is that China now has 253 million Internet users, pushing China into first place worldwide, surpassing the US.

The CNNIC is the main official source of information for the state of the Internet in China, and is the most frequently quoted report on China Internet statistics. For more detailed information, especially ecommerce numbers, etc., there are a number of market research firms in China which provide services, including custom reports for paying clients.

I would like see some changes and improvement to the CNNIC report. Here are some of them:

1. Outline the methodology used. Explain how the data is collected and by what authorities. Also explain how the audience is chosen. Make the whole process transparent as possible.
2. Show the questionnaire used, and let people provide feedback about what questions are used so that they can be improved in future versions of the report.
3. Use the same questionnaire nationwide so that there is a level basis for comparison.
4. Current data is weighed too much towards national and tier one cities in China. This information is too broad and not granular enough. Break out the information by province.
5. Provide the names of the government officials who collect the data on the national, municipal and provincial levels along with their email contact information so that we know who is responsible for collecting what data on what level.
6. Provide a forum so that these same people can answer questions about the CNNIC report and reply to suggestions. Engage the audience in a continuous dialogue to improve the CNNIC report.
7. Keep the primary data in a data warehouse, and consider making it accessible to researchers so that they can write their own queries and generate reports for a one-time fee or on a long-term basis for a subscription fee.

What do you call it when people pay nearly double current sales price to buy a product which is basically crippled of its most important function, and the maker has spent zero marketing dollars to sell the product?

I’d call that pretty powerful buzz marketing.

According to this USA Today story, some Chinese are willing to part with 8800 yuan to own an iPhone which doesn’t have working phone capabilities in China, because Apple has not yet signed a partnership agreement with a carrier. (Presumably, Apple would part with China’s leading mobile service provider, China Mobile, to launch iPhone service in China.)

Any way you look at it, Apple’s iPhone has had a successful launch in the US. Apple has taken its legendary experience in hardware/software design and integration and applied it to a whole new product, the mobile phone, bringing good design sense and functionality to a product which has confounded most users for years. On the marketing side, Steve Jobs has put the reality distortion field into overdrive, convincing many Americans who have never used smartphones before to part with their money. A few analysts have gone so far as to predict that Apple will replace Microsoft in the mobile space, becoming the leading player for a new category combining hardware and software design and integration in mobile computing. A report which came out on Sept. 4 has claimed that iPhone sales in the US in July have already beaten smartphone sales.

In China, mobile phones are very popular and are more than just communications devices. Often, with the Chinese concern for social rank, they are indicators of social status. On the business side, this translates into frequent replacements of handsets among China’s rising urban middle class as users want to have the latest devices. Mainly for this reason, handset makers have placed most of their research and development in China, to lower costs and to be close to trends for their single largest market.

But could Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and LG have missed something Steve Jobs and Apple saw, an opportunity which Jobs’ gang could not pass up? And could the high rate of handset sales belie not only a desire to have the latest mobile device, but be an indicator that Chinese users were not satisfied with any of the handsets made by any of the major hardware makers?

Moreover, could this represent an opportunity for Apple, which has never had major market presence in China for its computer business, but has made limited inroads with its iPod business? And is this a major opportunity for iPhone in a major emerging market?

First of all, let’s take a look at what Apple has done differently. In typical Steve Jobs style, Apple has played God, giving buyers a complete final sealed package and solution, including software (a version of OS X) by Apple, and a hardware design by Jonathan Ive, Apple’s superdesigner who has been largely responsible for the elegance factor in Apple’s products. To the consternation of a new generation of software developers, Apple has provided only very limited support and documentation for designers of third-party applications for the iPhone. But even with this very limited support, something interesting has happened: the developers have organized themselves to develop new apps for the iPhone.

When was the last time you heard of a large group of developers organizing themselves to develop and extend apps for new Nokia, Motorola, Samsung and LG phones? And for nothing?

While Apple and Steve Jobs try to create consumer reverence somewhere along the lines of Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments, the fact is that the first iteration of Apple’s products still are far from perfect. But the products always gets better. This reveals something about Steve Jobs which he strives to keep from the market: he listens and acts on intelligent customer input.

Uniquely among major hardware/software companies, Apple does not use focus groups. Designers design for Steve Jobs: designs and features Steve Jobs likes are kept; designs and features he dislikes are tossed away. There are no focus groups by marketing groups for senior management to use as crutches for their decisions.

If you look at it closely, what is happening with all the buzz for the iPhone is a mirror copy of what happened when the iPhone was announced on Jan. 7 at Macworld in San Francisco. The six month waiting period created a huge amount of pent-up demand and free buzz for the iPhone in the US, which translated into record sales for the product when it was launched on June 29.

Now, it’s happening even in China.

Genius. Pure genius.

Yesterday I participated in Barcamp Beijing 2007, which was held at the France Telecom Research and Development Building in Haidian district in Beijing. There were more than 100 participants with some 24 sessions held in three different languages.

It is hard to describe the firehose of information from Barcamp, but I will try to offer some of the highlights.

Michael Sikorsky, CEO of Cambrian House, first spoke about how to raise financing for startups. Based in Calgary Canada, Cambrian House offers a business platform for service providers, and Michael has successfully transitioned from being a tech person to a business person. I was immediately impressed by his praise of Paul Graham, founder of the Y Combinator seed-funding group. Paul Graham is the smartest tech guy who has transitioned to business, and Michael showed how Y Combinator has introduced a new VC business model of seeding startups by mentoring them through the startup process.

I have spoken frequently with Frank Yu about the need to bring something similiar to the Y Combinator seed capital model to Beijing. Chinese startups badly need mentoring, especially in their early phases because most of the founders do not know how to build teams. This is something Paul Graham’s Y Combinator organization has been able to address very well, teaching business smarts to founders from tech backgrounds.

The other main takeaway from Michael’s talk was that it was important for new companies to be “investor-centric” as opposed to “founder-centric”. If a company is set up to be friendly to investors up-front, then it is much easier for it to scale.

Andrew Lih, who is now living in Beijing, spoke about the Wikipedia movement. Andrew is a researcher in new media, and is now working on a book on Wikipedia due for publication sometime next year.

In the afternoon sessions, Karl Mattson, president of Medium Cool based in San Francisco, talked about what kinds of people were needed to build a good company. He put special emphasis on need for background diversity. When most Americans hear the word “diversity”, then tend to think in terms of racial, religious and sexual diversity. What Karl was talking about was the need to get people from different parts of the world, social and educational backgrounds so that they can exchange views by looking at a business proposition from different angles. Failure to do so meant that companies would often have “blind spots” and result in “group-think”, where the same group of people have a narrower and narrower vision.

I have noticed this tendency even in very large and successful US companies such as Microsoft and Google, where the definition of a smart person fits very closely with the founders’ definition of smart. This has resulted in a form of inbreeding, where the companies’ blind spots get bigger and bigger, creating opportunities for new challengers and startups.

Following his talk, Robert Scales, founder and CEO of Raincity Studios, talked about his company’s experience working with Drupal, the open-source community web framework. Robert talked about how Drupal has matured into an excellent solution for all kinds of businesses, with new modules being added on a regular basis. Previously, companies had been wary of using open-source as a solution because of security cares, but now he found that they had gone past those issues and had come to embrace it as a development platform. The best part for his 12-person team based in Vancouver was that because the software is regularly updated, his company only has to concentrate on basic functionality, design and configuration issues for his clients. And if his company cannot perform the work, design and feature requests can just as easily be addressed by another team which is familiar with Drupal. Now, his company is so busy that he has come to China to look for designers and coders to augment his Vancouver team; he mentioned that he is so busy that he has had to turn away business.

In reply to a question from me, Robert mentioned that the average billing amount and timeframe for a project is 3-6 months and 50-100k (Canadian dollars) per project.

My session was on the topic of “Building Management Teams” for startups. I focused on some of the problems which I found most Chinese startups to have:

• Founders fall in love with their own ideas too much, take criticism personally. This makes companies too slow to ditch old bad ideas.
• Chinese companies tend to be “founder-centric” instead of “investor-centric”, which means it is very difficult for a company to grow past US5B market cap in size (with the exceptions being Chinese state-owned enterprises or SOEs).
• Healthy startups have a technology founder, product founder and a bizdev founder, forming a tripod. Most startups in China do not have this setup; instead relying on one person to drive growth and vision. This model does not scale well, and feeds the founder’s ego too much. This puts a cap on future growth.
• There are too few original ideas; companies tend to copy each other.
• China has a high-competition, low-trust society. This also puts a cap on Chinese companies’ growth. If someone can successfully address the issue of how to build trust in the online/offline world, they will have something very interesting.

Many photos were taken, including many by Kris Krug, president of Bryght, one of the event sponsors. You can find the list of sponsors from my previous pre-event posting. If you would like to see photos from the event, you can find them on Flickr.

Many participants will be going to Shanghai where Barcamp Shanghai 2007 will be held at the offices of Tudou on Sept 8.

Barcamp Beijing 2007 was a very interesting and exciting event for those interested in technology. It provided an excellent opportunity to meet some of the participants and drivers in open-source and Web 2.0, and gave those from outside China a chance to learn about the Chinese market, and a chance for Chinese to mix with outsiders.

All in all, an excellent experience.

Until very recently, Chinese language qualifications were not considered a deal-breaker for senior positions in China. For the most part, US and European employers assumed that a person of Chinese extraction had some degree of fluency in Chinese, and could communicate with other Chinese in China.

This all changed when Goldman Sach’s proposed appointment for China co-head, Richard Ong, was disqualified from his proposed position because he failed to pass the language requirements for the position which were passed by the China Banking Regulatory Commission. Ong was a Malaysian Chinese who had been mostly educated in English in the west.

The test which Ong failed to pass was the HSK or Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi. The test is given in three levels: basic, intermediate and advanced. The most basic level of Chinese language fluency is level 1; the most advanced is level 11. Those who reach level 11 Chinese language fluency are deemed to be able to work in a Chinese-language work environment. The HSK is the only government-sanctioned test given to non-Chinese whose results are recognized by the Chinese government.

Previously, the HSK was considered important only for those who were interested in the Chinese language for research and academic purposes; now, it is quickly evolving into an important job requirement qualification for those who want to work in China.

The test information and registration website includes full information about the process and tests, with test dates and places. Registration for the tests can be done online, as well as payment. All the candidate then needs to do is print out his form and photo, and present himself on the date of the test.

Test preparation books and materials are widely available in foreign-language bookstores in China, as well as in online stores.

As China becomes more important and influential on the international business scene, the need for senior executives who are fluent in written, spoken and in reading Chinese will become more important. Now, because of CBRC regulations, the sectors most affected are the sensitive financial sector; it is likely that as western companies become educated about the difference between being ethnically Chinese and fluent in Mandarin, they will ask for HSK test scores to get a handle on the Chinese language fluency of their staff and management, and prospective candidates. It is likely that it will soon evolve into a requirement for those in marketing in China, and in operations. Already, among executive search firms, there is a serious shortage of senior-level staff and management positions where candidates with Chinese-language fluency and overseas work experience are sought. For those who are serious about working in China, it would be wise to take the HSK and have their scores ready for their meeting with the human resources department.

Among China consultants, the HSK has already become a hot topic for discussion.

For those who are interested in learning more from others, and in sharing their knowledge, there is a discussion group for the HSK on Facebook.

This is the opinion of Paul Craig Roberts, who previous served as Assistant Secretary of Treasury during the Reagan administration, and is often quoted as the “father of Reaganomics”. (You can read the Wikipedia entry about him here.)

Recently there has been discussion about China’s threat to use the “nuclear option”, or and basically destroying the value of the US dollar as a global reserve currency by dumping more dollars on the markets than they can absorb in a short time, forcing the dollar into a free-fall.

The prevailing wisdom among US economists is that China would not make such a move, as the damage to China’s own economy would be too great. Roberts rebuts this claim saying that

American economists make a mistake in their reasoning when they assume that China needs large reserves of foreign exchange. China does not need foreign exchange reserves for the usual reasons of supporting its currency’s value and paying its trade bills. China does not allow its currency to be traded in currency markets. Indeed, there is not enough yuan available to trade. Speculators, betting on the eventual rise of the yuan’s value, are trying to capture future gains by trading ‘virtual yuan.’ The other reason is that China does not have foreign trade deficits, and does not need reserves in other currencies with which to pay its bills. Indeed, if China had creditors, the creditors would be pleased to be paid in yuan as the currency is thought to be undervalued.

In addition, he refutes the claim that China would lose US markets with such a move.

The notion that China cannot exercise its power without losing its US markets is wrong. American consumers are as dependent on imports of manufactured goods from China as they are on imported oil. In addition, the profits of US brand name companies are dependent on the sale to Americans of the products that they make in China. The US cannot, in retaliation, block the import of goods and services from China without delivering a knock-out punch to US companies and US consumers. China has many markets and can afford to lose the US market easier than the US can afford to lose the American brand names on Wal-Mart’s shelves that are made in China. Indeed, the US is even dependent on China for advanced technology products. If truth be known, so much US production has been moved to China that many items on which consumers depend are no longer produced in America.

Roberts then builds a case for China’s dumping dollars as a reaction against US pressure for revaluing the yuan, refuting claims that this is an impossible scenario.

Consider that if China were to increase the value of the yuan by 30 percent, the value of China’s dollar holdings would decline by 30 percent. It would have the same effect on China’s pocketbook as dumping dollars and Treasuries in the markets.

Consider also, that as revaluation causes the yuan to move up in relation to the dollar (the reserve currency), it also causes the yuan to move up against every other traded currency. Thus, the Chinese cannot revalue as Paulson has ordered without making Chinese goods more expensive not merely to Americans but everywhere.

Compare this result with China dumping dollars. With the yuan pegged to the dollar, China can dump dollars without altering the exchange rate between the yuan and the dollar. As the dollar falls, the yuan falls with it. Goods and services produced in China do not become more expensive to Americans, and they become cheaper elsewhere. By dumping dollars, China expands its entry into other markets and accumulates more foreign currencies from trade surpluses.

Basically, Roberts makes a strong case for the argument that the US no longer has leverage over China and global financial markets the way it used to. You can read his whole article here.

Have we reached a tipping point in American power and global influence?