The China Vortex

The definition of astroturfing, according to Wikipedia is:

a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass AstroTurf.

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (”outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing one’s own personal agenda through to highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations.

As a business and marketing consultant who spends considerable time in China, I get upset when I see marketing and PR terms not used the right way. One thing which is done very frequently in China, but whose terminology is not used correctly, is astroturfing. As a matter of fact, I have not even heard of a Chinese term for astroturfing, even though I have seen it in many forms all the time. In fact, a good deal of what the Internet is used for in China in the BBSes in China, is astroturfing in different forms.

I was upset when I saw the term astroturfing mixed up with censorship in this video interview with reference to censorship in China. My definition of censorship is when I have to use a VPN tunnel to get to content I cannot view in China, or because I cannot get my Feedburner RSS feeds because they are blocked by the GFW, or as Jeremy Goldkorn, publisher of Danwei chooses to call it, the Net Nanny.

The biggest difference between astroturfing and censorship: astroturfing is a PR term and censorship is a political term. Astroturfing is a PR tactic which can be used for either political or commercial ends; censorship is always used for political ends. Using censorship with reference to China is a politically charged term because many critics of Chinese government policy like to use it to satisfy their own political agendas. Other people are entitled to their own political views re Chinese government policy, just as I’m entitled to mine. Everybody has a right to their own opinions. What I do criticize is abuse of terminology in order to score political points when in fact what is being used is a PR tactic.

Paying bloggers and users of Twitter to shape public opinion about China is an astroturfing tactic. Let’s call it astroturfing and not call it censorship. Admittedly, the Chinese government has used astroturfing in a very clumsy fashion by paying bloggers directly for their blog posts and tweets. Rule No. 1 of astroturfing is “Don’t get caught doing it”. This means you should set up front organizations to do the work so that the important guys/government have plausible deniability. These front organizations have to be run by eloquent, expensive and intelligent opinion leaders who know what they are doing and what the whole objective is. The people they work with, and contract with, do not have to know.

Sure, it adds to your costs, but some things are more important than costs. That’s why this whole payoff of bloggers and tweets is so silly and let’s say it, downright stupid.

The real masters at the right way to do astroturfing are the Americans and American PR and lobbying firms. They set up enough “independent” organizations so that the astroturfing movements cannot be traced back to the government, the original sponsor. After all, that is the whole point of it. Government ministries, organizations and parties should never be directly involved in it.

These “independent” organizations, usually think tanks, then contract with the PR firms and coordinate very complex and expensive PR campaigns which are, well, astroturfing. The whole objective is to make it look independent for most people. These people are the audience, the people whose opinion you want to shape.

Astroturfing was used extensively in the aftermath of the revelations of torture re Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in the US. Many Americans were sincerely shocked that the US military would use such interrogation techniques. In order to shape US public opinion, the Pentagon provided leading US media companies hired retired generals as “consultants” to talk on TV about the situation, and mitigate the political damage to the Bush administration. These consultants were paid for by the Pentagon. How it was done was revealed in an article on the New York Times.

If the Chinese government wants to be truly effective at winning the PR war with the western media, it has to allow different voices to speak up about China, and get past the very worn-out charges of “interfering in China’s internal affairs” or “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people”, which may have some appeal to not very bright people, but really turn off intelligent people. Part of the price of being considered a developed nation is to allow different discourse and opinions on an intelligent level. Moreover, this gives the Chinese leadership a better selection of policies to choose from. After all, that’s whole point of the exercise.

So let’s stop paying off bloggers and tweeters 50 Chinese yuancents or fen to shape public opinion. That’s the cheap and dumb way.

The Chinese government needs to stop thinking small and start thinking big in how it shapes not just Chinese public opinion, but western public opinion. Spend money and do it the right way with the right people.

Anything else is just an embarrassment.

Technorati Tags: abughraib, astroturfing, blogging, censorship, China, feedburner, guantanamo, marketing, pentagon, PR, publicrelations, rss, twitter, US

China is a nation of entrepreneurs, and according to statistics, has 85 million businesses compared to the US’s 25 million. Considering that China has about four times the population of the US, the proportion is about right. These numbers reveal that China is in fact, not a socialist nation, but is instead one which has a very capitalist heart. Or as the Chinese government would say, has “market characteristics”.

There are many Chinese university graduates who when choosing a job, prefer to go to a western company over a Chinese company. For many, American companies are the most preferred. Why is this?

For many of them, it is because that they will get good training, learn management, and work within large organizations about how to get a job done. They get a chance to work with people from many different cultures and countries.

These are significant advantages which most Chinese companies, which have not yet gone global, are not yet able to offer. But I believe that there is another perhaps more important reason.

That is, they know that they will be judged more on performance and merit than on personal relationships with the founder and/or CEO. When it comes to relationships, Chinese founders and CEOs are still very reluctant to trust people outside their own inner circle, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone outside to make it into this inner circle, no matter how good they are. I’m convinced that this attitude has put a natural ceiling or limit on how successful Chinese companies will be in globalizing. When people discover that no matter how smart they are or how hard they work, that they will not make it into the inner circle, they will either move to a company where they know that they are respected, or they will start their own company.

In contrast, Americans and American companies have a different approach. They put value on developing management talent, especially local management talent in a major market like China. They identify rising stars and put them on a management training track soon. Most importantly, they promote them without regard to who they know or are related to.

Most Chinese companies do not do this. This gives American companies human talent scaleability when going global which Chinese companies do not have. Successful American and western companies which have gone global tend to be meritocracies, while Chinese companies are still stuck at the plutocracy stage.

In his book Managing the Dragon, Jack Perkowski stresses how his company ASIMCO is a Chinese company. Technically and legally it is. The important thing is that he was pragmatic about bringing in the best people in their fields as senior and executive management, without regard to who they were related to. This is a very American characteristic, and in China, it works. Ironically, if there is an outsider advantage in China, this is it.

The Chinese government and the management of most Chinese companies have figured this out, but have not been able to apply this lesson to their own organizations yet. This is one of those things which cannot be solved by a government order or administrative guidelines, which the Chinese government likes to use to solve complex problems.

If Chinese companies successfully resolve this problem, there will be no limit to their growth.

Technorati Tags: America, China, companies, global, human, management, talent, training, US

This is pretty self-explanatory.

Investors who bought notes due February 2018 on March 17, just after the Fed helped arrange the bailout of Bear Stearns Cos., have lost 6.2 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

The 10-year note, at 4.25 percent, yields no more than the inflation rate, leaving investors with real returns near zero. Consumer prices have exceeded 10-year yields by an average of 36 basis points since December, Bloomberg data show. In 1980, inflation reached a 33-year high of 14.8 percent and yields averaged 11.4 percent.

`Out of the Bottle’

Yields on 10-year notes had dropped to an almost five-year low of 3.28 percent on March 17, after the Fed cut the discount rate at an emergency weekend meeting and backed JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s deal to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Rates on three-month bills plunged to 0.39 percent, the lowest since the 1950s, the same day as investors sought the safety of the shortest maturity government debt.

Consumer prices advanced 4.2 percent in May from a year earlier, the Labor Department said June 13. The rate was above the median forecast of 3.9 percent in a Bloomberg survey of economists, and the highest since January.
Economists at New York-based Morgan Stanley say inflation will reach 5 percent to 5.5 percent this summer, the highest since 1991.

“The global inflation genie is out of the bottle,’’ Morgan Stanley analysts led by Joachim Fels, co-head of global economics, said in a June 11 report. Even if the pace moderates in coming months, “we are likely to see higher average inflation rates,’’ they said. Inflation averaged 3.1 percent during the past two decades.
`Unsustainable Levels’

Inflation is also eliminating the rewards of owning U.S. stocks. Standard & Poor’s 500 Index shares yield 0.2 percentage point more in profits than the interest on 10-year notes, the smallest advantage since 2004, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The last time corporate earnings returned less than bonds, the index posted its biggest monthly decline in five years.

“What did you say? You wanted us to buy more US assets?”

Oh, and I forgot to mention, this is in straight dollar terms only. You need to also figure in how much the US dollar is going to depreciate against other currencies in the coming ten years.

“Ouch!”

I wonder how the Chinese government is going to explain this to Chinese citizens, since it is their official responsibility to protect Chinese investments and assets? And that the situation, particularly re inflation, is going to get much worse before it gets better?

And it really doesn’t matter who becomes US president either, at least with regard to this set of issues.

Not even a US president can do anything about this.

Technorati Tags: assets, bearstearns, bloomberg, China, corporate, dollar, earnings, inflation, investment, notes, US

“Interfering in another country’s internal affairs” is a routine mantra often used by Chinese government spokespersons, and is used most often when pointed at the US and US critics, especially with regard to human rights policies.

On the surface, this makes a lot of sense, especially with regards to generally ignorant US politicians, movie stars and others, who would have a hard time finding places like Tibet and Darfur on a map, but are moved by some of the images they see on television. For them, China and Chinese policies are a very convenient whipping boy, even though they have very little context and understanding of the real underlying issues.

This naturally puts the Chinese government on the defensive and more recently, some Chinese have become angry at the overseas criticism.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? Those who argue against interfering in another country’s internal affairs, or those who say it’s OK to do so?

The fact is that if a country is big and has a strong economy, whatever it does has an effect on other country’s economies, and on the global economy. Even though only American citizens’ can vote in their elections, the gross stupidity and ineptitude of American economic and trade policies in recent years do not end at America’s borders.

They go far beyond it.

And the Chinese government has started complaining about it. After all, they hold huge amounts of US dollar-denominated treasuries which are losing their value daily as the US dollar loses value, and their sovereign wealth funds are blocked from making investments in Europe and the US, mainly on political and not economic grounds.

So aren’t Chinese government officials interfering in US internal affairs? Yes, but the two countries’ economies are so tightly intertwined, the US policies are having an effect on the Chinese economy. When they are so tightly bound together by trade and economics, there is no borderline. It’s as silly as the right arm complaining about the left arm.

The fact is that the US and China are like two handicapped people: one is blind and the other is deaf. They need each other in order to survive.

The sooner politicians, officials and miserably deficient media on both sides recognize that, the better. If they don’t, ordinary people will continue to get caught in the middle and distracted by bad policies and ignorant offline and online media pundits getting them to chase red herrings while the real problems get worse.

Technorati Tags: China, Darfur, dollar, economy, media, policy, Tibet, trade, US

On June 11, I attended an event in Beijing where Jack Perkowski, author of the book Managing the Dragon talked about his experiences doing business in China and on the Chinese economy. He also keeps a blog where he talks about China-related topics. In March, I had read the book and wrote an online review which you can read here.

During the dinner talk, Mr. Perkowski talked in greater depth about some of the issues he talked about in the book. Most of the audience of 20+ people were people who had considerable experience living and working in China.

He talked about how he saw China as having two different economies, which he calls the “local foreign economy” and the “local local economy”. He sees the local foreign economy as being made up of 400M people who have average annual income of US7500. The other 900M people have an annual average income of US2500. Right now, these are almost separate economies in the same country. The existence of the local local economy, which is very cost- and price-sensitive, means that there is a large part of the economy which needs modern things, but cannot afford western prices. Many Chinese companies are looking for new ways to reach this audience. This means that manufacturers are always looking for new ways to constantly cut their costs to reach them, which in turn leads to a very high rate of innovation.

An example he mentioned were piston rings. There are six global piston rings makers in the world, but there are 400 in China. The reason for the China discrepancy is because there is demand for cheaper solutions from the local local market, who are always looking for cheaper and more competitive components. While they have the same need for transport as the foreign local market, they cannot afford the expensive brand components.

In contrast, the foreign local economy accepts a higher level of costs, and is less sensitive to pricing pressure. These are mainly export manufacturers which have come to China from the US or Europe and come to manufacture auto parts first for their home markets and then later, other markets. Mr. Perkowski believes that in order to survive, it’s essential to reach down into the local local market. Unfortunately, many American car makers were unaware of this market, and wanted to sell only into the foreign local market. In the meantime, the toughest Chinese makers which have prospered and survived, claw their way into the local foreign market, where they are much leaner, meaner and smarter than the major US makers.

It made me think that in reality, China has a domestic market and an export market. The domestic market can be thought of as the local local market, and the export market is the local foreign market. Eventually, the two markets will merge, but it will take some time before that happens.

Mr Perkowski mentioned that the US “makes” 16M vehicles annually, of which 5M are imported from other countries. This means that in reality, the US makes some 11M vehicles annually. According to him, American makers are not able to make money on small cars, only on larger vehicles such as SUVs, which Americans are no longer buying because of high gasoline prices. The Chinese auto makers, in comparison, are able to manufacture small cars profitably. This year, Chinese makers will make some 10M+ vehicles, putting Chinese manufacturing capacity on a par with US makers. He believes that China will overtake the US economy in size, and Americans will have to get used to the idea of having the second largest economy in the world. (My note: Of course, it will take some time for India to take the world’s second largest economy position away from the US.)

He believes that the place where the US will continue to be dominant will be in efficient capital markets. This is a place where America will continue to be the world’s leader.

Mr. Perkowski does not speak Chinese, but his good common sense about doing business in China showed that he had a good deal more knowledge about China than many of those who speak the language. In his case, common sense and a good attitude have more than compensated.

Technorati Tags: autos, capital, cars, China, Chinese, components, economy, efficiency, india, managingthedragon, markets, US

Seeking Alpha has an interesting article The Power of the Market: 600 Million People Lifted Out of Poverty Since 1981. The article comes with two graphs, one of which is above.

This shows that there has been a gradual fall in numbers of poor since 1981, but there was a bump in the years from about 1988 to 1994, when the numbers of poor stubbornly resisted to fall. This was a time of high inflation in China.

Do I need to tell you what happened in China in 1989?

This graph gives a rough indication that as long as the Chinese government is able to show a descending line that poverty numbers are going down in absolute terms, then the government’s position is safe. If inflation should pick up and the number of poor goes up, then they have something to worry about.

So far, developments on the economic front have been going well in China, with the noted exception of high inflation in China, much of which is due to higher commodity costs (food and energy costs) and capital inflows. Much of the capital inflow into China is due to investors who want to get out of the US dollar, and see China as the most attractive growth market for their money.

Rising inflation is usually an early indicator of other economic and social problems to come.

A few years ago, investment money coming into China was welcomed with open arms, but now times have changed, and the government doesn’t see them nearly as favorably as they did just one year ago. Capital inflows which are liquid can come into China, and also leave it very quickly, leaving the country’s economy and society in a lurch, just as it did during the Asian financial crisis of 1997 for the countries of Southeast Asia.

With the US economy heading for the dumpster, and Europe showing signs of weakness due to rising energy prices, that is not something the Chinese government wants. It is more than likely that the Chinese government will do anything to keep those poverty numbers going down in China, regardless of what it means for the rest of the global economy.

The need for social stability in China trumps everything else. Including commitments to globalization and the WTO.

Fasten your seat belts.

Technorati Tags: 1997, asia, China, crisis, economy, financial, indicator, inflation, poverty, US

Several days ago, a different kind of earthquake happened in China in the telecoms field. Unlike the Sichuan earthquake which took so many lives and caused so much damage, this shakeup was not unexpected. It’s ramifications will be large, if not huge, and it’s worth going into some depth to get a deeper understanding of how this change will affect the development of mobile usage of the Internet in China.

Before leaving the Sichuan earthquake as a subject, I would like to point you to this excellent slideshow by CIC Data (h/t to Tangos Chan) which shows how China’s grassroots social media has helped in the disaster rescue and recovery process.

China’s New Telecom Landscape

The main points of the new joint interagency government announcement by the MII (Ministry of Information Industry), NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission) and Ministry of Finance (MOF) are phrased as an opinion and encouragement. (Note: When you get two government ministries and one super-ministry “encouraging” you this way, you do what you are encouraged to do, even if you are China Mobile and have the largest single-country number of subscribers in the world. After all, this is China, not the US, where big corporations tell Congress and the executive through lobbyists and lawyers what they want and are willing to do, and then sell it to the American people through the media as “being in the best interests of the people”.)

The main points are:

• China Telecom is “encouraged” to acquire the CDMA business of China Unicom
• China Unicom and China Netcom are encouraged to merge
• The basic telecom service of China Satellite should be merged into China Telecom
• China Tietong (part of the railways infrastructure and the third fixed line operator after China Unicom and China Netcom) is to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of China Mobile

All six operators (China Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom, China Netcom, China Satellite and China Tietong) have been asked to separately submit their implementation plans to the relevant ministries where they will be encouraged (again) to reconcile their different plans and agree on a schedule. Once this is completed, the Chinese government will then announce the granting of the three 3G licenses and which operators they will go to.

Following the reorganization, there will be three companies left, which meshes perfectly with the number of 3G licenses to be granted by the government. There will be one license granted for each of the new 3G technologies: TD-SCDMA (China’s natively-developed standard), CDMA2000 and WCDMA. Current opinion is that China Mobile will get the TD-SCDMA license, with China Unicom and China Telecom getting the other two foreign technology licenses.

Reaction

The immediate reaction on the HKSE, where China Mobile, China Unicom, China Netcom and China Telecom are listed was unfavorable to China Mobile, the giant in the mobile sector in China. Goldman Sachs issued a sell rating on China Mobile.

You can bet that the six companies will be burning the midnight oil to complete and submit their implementation plans so that they can get the 3G licenses as soon as possible, which should be sometime within the next 3-6 months. Most likely it will not happen before the Beijing Olympics, even though the network infrastructure is there, simply because there is a lot of training and testing to be done.

My Take

This change marks the end of the first stage of the rollout of mobile phone services in China. While China has the largest single-country number of mobile subscribers, most people use mobile overwhelmingly only for voice and SMS services. From a business standpoint, China’s telecom industry has been in a wait-and-see mode for the past two years.

This second generation, or next stage of mobile services will be about a renewed rollout and introduction of more data services, and the more important metric for the operators will be ARPU (average revenue per user) instead of number of subscribers. So please, let’s stop talking about number of subscribers, and let’s talk about ARPU instead from now on.

ARPU will be the real metric to measure the performance of the three operators. I say “It’s about time!”

This change opens crack and opportunities for investment and new players, and gives more choices to Chinese consumers. China Mobile, the industry leader in mobile services, has continued to expand the number of subscribers, having the world’s largest number of subscribers in one country, with more than 500M. China Unicom has been playing catchup because it started as a CDMA service provider (as opposed to China Mobile’s GSM) and although it also later entered the GSM field. The small independent mobile operators such as Tom.com, Linktone and KongZhong have all languished because China Mobile was seen as the dominant player which wanted to completely dominate the platform and application-level services. While it would be a real challenge for those companies to claw their way back to health, venture capital and private equity firms can now look more favorably at the next generation of mobile services, which will no longer be as dependent on a single mobile provider, since there are now three choices available, and they will differentiate on the basis of how they cooperate with service providers and services they offer to Chinese consumers.

In order for Chinese startups to survive and prosper, they will increasingly differentiate themselves on their business and execution skills instead of just technology. Good management will be key.

It goes without saying that Apple’s iPhone will be the most high-profile beneficiary of the change, since it will have two other mobile operators to talk to besides just China Mobile. Instead of just having a loyal base of hacked iPhone users in China, Apple will have a chance to test its vision of the mobile Internet with Chinese users.

The major handset makers such as Nokia, Sony-Ericsson and Samsung will also want to test their application services among Chinese users, and will have greater chance of reaching them.

There are many opportunities in search and display advertising, and subscription-based services. Most of these opportunities are not infrastructure-related, but service- and tool-related. I will talk about some of these opportunities in the future.

While this is a short-term setback for China Mobile, it will ultimately help the company because instead of becoming a lazy monopolist offering bad services, it will have to compete on service. This will make the company more competitive when China starts planning seriously for 4G.

I give the plan an enthusiastic “thumbs-up”!

This is a good example of central planning working to help competitiveness, and in favor of consumers.

It would be nice if, ahem, other countries with large consumer markets, took a closer look at this move and how it helps competitiveness.

Technorati Tags: 3G, advertising, arpu, BBS, cdma, cdma2000, China, chinamobile, chinanetcom, chinatelecom, display, earthquake, gsm, internet, policy, search, sichuan, td_scdma, telcos, telecom, US, wcdma

Following the Sichuan Wenchuan earthquake, it has been very interesting to watch how the Chinese government and people have reacted, and how many western observers have reacted. For the first time in Chinese history, the Chinese government has ordered that Chinese flags have to be lowered to half-staff, for three days from May 19-21. What is most significant, is that this is the first time that the flag has been lowered for ordinary civilians in Chinese history, ever.

China has always had a larger population than other countries, and the country has had very bloody periods in its history. Some 20M Chinese were killed in the 19th century during a civil war, the Taiping Rebellion, and possibly another 20M were killed in WWII, when Japan invaded China. Millions also died because of bad political policy decisions in the 1950s and 1960s, which reached their culmination in the Cultural Revolution.

Unlike in Washington DC, where you can find war monuments to Americans killed in WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, there are no war memorials to Chinese soldiers or civilians killed in these wars, or to any who died as a result of bad government policy decisions. For the most part, they have just become unknown individuals who died and are now forgotten.

This is why the decision to lower the Chinese flag for ordinary civilians is so different and marks a break with the past. For the first time in its history, the Chinese government is saying that it is OK to mourn for ordinary civilians. This did not happen during the Tangshan earthquake, which killed some 450,000 civilians in 1976, or in 1989, or even so much during the SARS crisis of 2003.

For the first time, a Chinese government has embraced the idea that any human life, even that of ordinary human lives, has value. Actually, this is a very western concept, and is a very important step on the road to democracy. Is this not a valuable change in China’s reforms and opening up? This will make it that much more difficult for any Chinese government to dismiss the value of any Chinese lives which are lost in the future, whether they are due to natural disaster, or war, or for political reasons.

The Chinese government and party have activated their media, and issued an edict that entertainment websites should shut down over the next three days, entertainment programming should be curtailed, along with three minutes of mourning each day.

This move immediately attracted strong criticism from many members of the Twitterati in the US who, to put it frankly, have embarrassingly little understanding of China, and continue to see China in over-simplified black and white stereotypes, as you can see in this feed from Robert Scoble’s Friendfeed account.

When I think that the people who have Friendfeed accounts represent smart, well-educated, tech-savvy people, and they say these things, I just get depressed. The stereotypes and distrust of China just run so deep.

I get a very different view simply because I read Chinese, and I know what many Chinese say and think on the Internet, where people have much more latitude to express themselves than on TV and the print media. Sure, the government has an agenda and is spinning and exploiting this to make themselves look good. And in some ways, they are doing it in a clumsy way. But the government is now accountable to protect the lives of ordinary Chinese.

After 9/11, the US government claimed all kinds of special powers, including surveillance wiretaps, the need to kidnap and torture terror suspects, and the need to invade Iraq because the government of Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and the government needed to keep these weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. If there is one thing we can learn from all tragedies, it is that all governments have agendas, and they will exploit every opportunity to push their agendas in the event of a tragedy.

But it does not mean that the original intent should be completely dismissed out of hand as the actions of a dictatorial regime.

Maybe I’m asking too much, but can some people, Americans especially, try to look at China through the eyes of the Chinese, and not always try to scare and frighten other Americans into asking what the “rise” of China means to the US and the west? Is it too much to think or ask that maybe, just maybe, Chinese don’t spend everyday plotting how to steal their jobs and turn America into a third-world economy? And that maybe, they are just ordinary people who are trying to get along in life, and raise their child and get him/her in a good school, and buy a house? And that the government is far from perfect, but it has allowed ordinary Chinese to have a much better standard of living than before, and is now, for the first time, beginning to care for and mourn the loss of ordinary civilian lives?

There’s a very simple rule: If you reach out and treat people like friends, they tend to act like friends, and if you treat them suspiciously, they become enemies.

In the beginning, it’s hard to reach out and trust people you don’t know well as friends because they seem so foreign and different, but it’s always works out better in the end.

UPDATE 5/20/08: I was interviewed by Christine Lu of China Business Network about this article and you can read that interview here. This article is also referenced in a blog article for the Guardian (UK).
EastSouthNorthWest has an article about how the Central Publicity Department, which is a Chinese government and party organ in charge of making sure that the official line is carried in the Chinese media, dealt with the earthquake crisis.

Technorati Tags: China, democracy, earthquake, internet, media, mourning, print, sichuan, TV, US, wenchang, western

When the western media and some outside observers talk about “Angry China”, they really miss out on the real story, and even the real questions which need to be asked. For instance, how do very large groups of people, who at least on the surface, have nothing to do with each other, organize in large numbers so quickly in a society which many westerners see as authoritarian? Are they government-led or influenced, or do they do it themselves? How do they come to believe some of the wild rumors which come up, such as for instance, the belief that Carrefour sends a portion of its earnings to support the Dalai Lama and Tibet independence, and are seemingly oblivious to the fact that any large company would like to keep as much of its earnings for itself?

There is a very simple answer to all this: a large part of the organization is done on the Internet in China, specifically on BBSes. While the BBS (bulletin board system) is something outdated and antiquated in the US Internet, it has been a very important part of the Chinese Internet, and I would argue, it is growing and becoming more influential. For the Chinese government, it is a headache because in spite of Chinese government regulations, it is largely unregulated. For western corporations it is a good place to gather information but is useless for advertising, but for many Chinese it is the most important part of the Internet (along with online gaming and their IM client, which is most likely to be QQ or MSN Instant Messenger depending on their age and demographics).

Don’t believe me? Go to your nearest Chinese Internet cafe and watch what people are doing.

Most westerners who come into the China Internet market have no idea of its power and influence, and instead think that the Chinese Internet is largely the same as the US market, but it isn’t. The Chinese government doesn’t really like BBSes because it really is free (as in free speech), and is the breeding ground for all kinds of weird stuff. And while it is important for gathering buzz on products (as CIC, based in Shanghai, does) for corporations, nobody has really been able to monetize it. And, western journalists fail to monitor it, which is why they miss on so many big stories, and end up giving credit to some sinister Chinese government policies. ( I guess it’s kind of flattering for the Chinese government to be given credit for something when most Chinese know that it isn’t that powerful.)

Isn’t it amazing that such a huge and important part of free speech in China has been entirely missed? Fortunately, Tom Melcher’s new blog Live from Beijing! has a very good introductory article to BBSes (h/t to Andrew Lih). I got something of an introduction to the BBS in 1998, shortly after Sina was formed from the merger of SRS and Sinanet. One of the first web applications created by Wang Zhidong was a simple BBS which he demoed to me in the summer of that year. It really took off in popularity with the US’s accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in April 1999 when millions of angry Chinese hit the Sina news forum. Please don’t think of the Strong Nation forum on the People’s Daily site as being at all representative of Chinese BBSes; it is official and closely monitored for content. The interesting BBSes are all unofficial or semi-official.

Most of the angry Chinese in China, or fenqing, are organized on the BBSes, where they gather and shoot the breeze. These people have time on their hands, and play games, spend time in QQ, and gossip on the BBSes of their choice at the moment. They spend almost no time on what we would call the official Internet, except going to get news on Sina, Sohu and Netease. It is very hard to reach them with advertising.

Now, let’s talk about their persona. For the most part, they:

• They distrust the official media and do not buy magazines, and get as much information as they can from unofficial sources, such as BBSes. They only go to the official media for some sports information and major news information.
• They trust unofficial news more than news which comes from official sources.
• They are the perfect audience for spreading rumors, because they can be quickly organized by anonymous leaders, or “honeybees” as Tom Melcher calls them in his article.
• When organized, they can be huge, in the millions, and they can move like a swarm.

In simple terms, the characteristics of this unofficial crowd are:

• Chinese official government influence is very limited
• They are mostly self-organized
• The numbers are in the millions
• They move extremely fast
• They disappear just as fast as they appeared
• They are almost always anonymous and do not use their real names, preferring instead to use their own handles

In simple terms, they are an issue-focused flash mob. For corporations, they are:

• Not susceptible to traditional PR methods since you are dealing with an anonymous group
• Very tightly focused around one issue
• Move much faster than corporations and their decision-making apparatus is diversified,
• Do not trust/ believe in information from any government, including Chinese

My estimate is that more than 60% of non-IM traffic in China is to these unofficial BBSes, and that number is growing.

When it comes to advertising, most adspend hits that remaining 40% of the official and semi-official Internet, without reaching where many people are. CIC acts as the eyes and ears of corporations, but corporations have not been able to do anything yet with that information and are still reliant on mainstream advertising approaches for both online and offline which are largely out of date. This is the background for my article on why agencies need a new approach to online marketing in China.

So, BBSes are the real social media marketing tool, and as usual, the Chinese are ahead of everyone else, but just haven’t figured out that part themselves. While the west talks about social media and Web 2.0, China has had a version of it for the past ten years. It may not be pretty, but it works.

It’s just that vast majority of outsiders haven’t figured it out yet.

Technorati Tags: angrychina, BBS, carrefour, China, cic, fenqing, gaming, im, marketing, media, online, qq, sina, social, Tibet, US, web2

I just read The Economist’s lead article this week titled “Angry China”. I came away from it disappointed, and I would like to explain why.

The main gist of the article is that the Chinese government should be worried about the rising tide of Chinese nationalism because a great deal of the anger now directed at western policies and interests are in fact, anger at Chinese government policy. Handled the wrong way, this tide of Chinese nationalism could very well turn against the Chinese government, leading to unpredictable consequences.

Here are the money quotes:

China’s rage is out of all proportion to the alleged offences. It reflects a fear that a resentful, threatened West is determined to thwart China’s rise. The Olympics have become a symbol of China’s right to the respect it is due. Protests, criticism and boycott threats are seen as part of a broader refusal to accept and accommodate China.

There is no doubt genuine fury in China at these offences; yet the impression the response gives of a people united behind the government is an illusion. China, like India, is a land of a million mutinies now. Legions of farmers are angry that their land has been swallowed up for building by greedy local officials. People everywhere are aghast at the poisoning of China’s air, rivers and lakes in the race for growth. Hardworking, honest citizens chafe at corrupt officials who treat them with contempt and get rich quick. And the party still makes an ass of the law and a mockery of justice.

This is a classic “bait-and-switch” argument. The anger directed at the west is in fact domestic Chinese anger at Chinese government policies, according to this thesis. This is a dismissal of any anger at the west as an argument completely without merit, and an attempt to shift all of the blame onto the Chinese government.

It is exactly this kind of argument which Chinese see as western hypocrisy and double standards. Of course there is anger at some Chinese government policies, but these are a separate issue. Please don’t try to change the subject!

Sure, there are some aspects of Chinese government policy which Chinese citizens would like to see change. But the pro-Tibetan independence folk have committed the sin of lumping Chinese citizens together with the Chinese government in their criticisms. To the Chinese, it seems like a classic attempt to hijack the Olympics, something which almost all Chinese are truly proud of, and to turn it into a bully pulpit for their claims of Tibetan independence.

What angers both the Chinese government policymakers and people is that while the country has developed in economic terms and yes, even in human rights terms, that has not been recognized in the west. Instead, there continue to be politicians and media figures who continue to hector China, and play a leading role in shaping western opinions and political policy about China. To the Chinese, it seems like no matter how hard they run to the finish line, there is always someone out there moving the finish line even further away while they are running the race.

Trying to steal the Olympics and letting the Chinese have their day in the sun would be very similiar to insulting an American simply because George W Bush is his president. This is exactly what the pro-Tibetan independence supporters, and the China media critics have done.

Why should these people, who have little deep understanding of China and the Chinese (or Tibetans for that matter) have such an influential role in shaping opinion about such an important relationship as the west’s relationship with China, and be given so much ink and free air time? In light of this, why shouldn’t Chinese get angry about this very unfair and one-sided view which is put forward in much of the western media, and then passed off as the truth? And why doesn’t the western media instead reach out to westerners who have lived in China, and maybe, even speak the language in order to get a deeper understanding of the country?

Is this fair?

The real reason many Chinese are angry is not redirected anger at Chinese government policies, it is a genuine anger at a very biased and one-sided view about China which casts it as irresponsible, selfish, oppressive and wrong, and then throwing all Chinese citizens into the same basket.

The Economist is, generally speaking, a fair and open-minded newspaper, and usually presents well thought-out positions and arguments . It should look deeper than dismiss all of the Chinese anger out of hand.

If this lead article is the best that they can do, then I’m not optimistic about relations between China and the west.

Technorati Tags: American, Beijing, bush, China, Chinese, economist, media, olympics, opinion, Tibet, US, western