The China Vortex

One of the recurring themes of China’s reforms and opening up over the past thirty years has been the expansion of China’s private sector, usually at the expense of the public sector, or government-invested industries. This is a theme which has been often overlooked in the west, even by westerners in China, as they are more focused on the relationship with western companies, specifically Western Foreign-Owned Enterprises (WFOEs). There are three important components in the Chinese economy: state-owned enterprises, private companies and WFOEs. For the most part, the WFOEs are only allowed to play a peripheral role with all kinds of restrictions placed on them from time to time. It is highly unlikely that the Chinese government will allow them to play major roles in any sector.

The most important and vibrant part of the economy are the Chinese private sector. In spite of being out of power politically, occasionally suppressed, lack of capital and resources, it has managed to the point where it now employs more people than the public sector.

Let’s take a closer look at the media industry, just to cite an example. All official media, including newspapers, magazines, books, television and radio are owned, in one way or another, by the government. These might be the central government, provincial government or municipal governments. The performance and careers of these government officials are often measured by how these media perform: if they perform, the careers of these officials go up, if they perform less than well, then it goes into their performance evaluation, and has an effect on their careers.

The challenge for the official media in China now is that they are, generally speaking, losing audience to smarter and more creative challengers from the private sector in fields like online gaming. When this happens, and audience and circulation go down, these officials have to think of ways to address the situation. If that doesn’t work, they cover up the bad numbers.

Virtually all of the challengers in the Internet media field are private companies which are venture capital funded. In short, they are all private sector. When the audience moves to the private sector companies, public sector media companies tend to lose first audience, then revenue.

Many westerners look at the media ownership issue in China too much from a political and social oppression angle.

Actually, there is a lot more to it than that. It’s about what industries will still stay in Chinese state ownership, and how they will remain competitive in the hyper-challenging Chinese market. The official media has tried to counter-balance this trend by showing women in bikinis and other devices, but the trend to the private sector media (or user-generated media) is continuing. This is what Chinese ministries are thinking about all the time.

After all, if there are no longer competitive industries in the state’s company portfolio, how will it get revenue?

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?

The quality and amount of discourse on the proposed takeover of Yahoo! by Microsoft has had my bullshit meter jumping off the charts, and I felt I just had to chime in.

Paul Kedrosky summed it up best when he said that it would benefit Google the most. Anyone with half a brain and who has worked in corporate management more than one week knows that the most painful thing to do in business is to grow by acquisition. Acquisitions are especially hard to do in a market which has matured relatively quickly in the US, such as search advertising. But analysts and senior management sometimes like to do acquisitions because it creates a lot of buzz. And in the lousy US market nowadays, any buzz which does not include the keyword “subprime” is welcome buzz.

Organic growth is the much better way, and in the long run, yields better results. A lot of early Google talent has been cashing in their chips and leaving the company; shouldn’t Microsoft focus on hiring some of those very smart people to beef up their search offerings? Wouldn’t that be a better way to catch up to Google’s search technology? Yes, and I’m sure that Microsoft is doing that right now, but it doesn’t capture the imagination of the old media folks the way Microsoft! would.

“Let’s toss a big fat red herring to the dumb masses!”

In spite of its management problems, Microsoft still has a formidable technology pool of talent. The fact that it cannot create an operating system as reliable as Apple’s Leopard even though it has more than three times the number of employees is more a testament to bad management of talent and resources than to anything else. It could even be argued that Ubuntu Linux has a friendlier and more stable operating system, and it has almost no revenue, and almost everyone working on it is a volunteer!

So why does Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer want to do this deal? I see it as hail-Mary desperation pass to show that he is “doing something”. If you are saying that it is useless and dumb, then you have a problem. You see, you have committed the unforgiveable sin of looking too closely and thinking too much.

Shame on you!

To add to the entertainment value of this show, Google has jumped in with claims that it is seeking to protect the “openness of the Internet from a closed company like Microsoft”. Now, I have had many images of the Internet, but I have never quite had the image of the Internet as this beautiful bride about to be horribly ravished by some mean thug in the northwest. As a matter of fact, I think that the Internet has been ravished many times before, continues to be ravished, and somehow manages to live with it and get along with life.

Now, if Google has suddenly discovered that Microsoft is closed, why should it limit itself to complaining about Microsoft? Why not go after nation-states which are not famous for openness, and frequently tinker with the “openness” of the Internet. If they have any trouble thinking of any, they are welcome to call me.

I could easily come up with more than 190 names.

So Google can now also score points with your senile old grandfather, the one who criticized Microsoft for being a monopoly way back in the 90s, but still makes sure to keep his copies of Microsoft Office current.

YEAH, GOOGLE STANDS FOR OPENNESS!

Now, to add to Uncle Steve’s general cluelessness, he comes out with this gem stating that Google has no products, it only has search. He may not have heard it, but there is a whole bunch of businesses which don’t have products; they’re called services.

Yes, Google doesn’t have any products; it only has services. But the services produce something called search advertising revenue by matching advertisers with content providers using keywords and taking a chunk of revenue in the process.

Do you think that Steve knows why he’s buying Yahoo?

Frightening thought, isn’t it?