Peter Rand: China Hands (****)
Richard Evans: Deng Xiaoping and the Making of Modern China: Revised Edition (****)
William Hinton: Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village (****)
Pu Yi Aisin-Gioro: From Emperor to Citizen: The Autobiography of Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi (*****)
Andrew Nathan: Great Wall and the Empty Fortress: China's Search for Security (****)
Joe Studwell: The China Dream: The Quest for the Last Great Untapped Market on Earth
Bruce Gilley: Tiger on the Brink: Jiang Zemin and China's New Elite (****)
Neal Gabler: An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (****)
Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson: Bringing Heaven Down to Earth: 365 Meditations of the Rebbe (*****)
Arthur Gelb: City Room (*****)
William Manchester: Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War (****)
Robert D. Kaplan: Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground (*****)
Gerald Lyn Early: One Nation Under A Groove: Motown and American Culture (***)
Seth Godin: Purple Cow: Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable (****)
Robert D. Kaplan: The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War (****)
Sally Denton: The Money and the Power: The Making of Las Vegas and Its Hold on America (****)
Walter J. Williams: The Rift (****)
Tom Clancy: Without Remorse (****)
Starbucks Pacific Place
Dreaming of a solar-powered MacBookPro
1338 hrs.
My entry on glocal brands has sparked some comment, both online and off, particularly the idea that a product brand that has been taken off the market by the company that owns it may well find value not as a global brand, but as one targeted to a specific demographic in a new market.
GM’s Buick and Colgate-Palmolive’s Darlie toothpaste were two we talked about, and JP brought up Coca-Cola’s Fanta brand of fruit-flavored sodas, which have pretty much disappeared in the US but have built strong markets in Asia and Latin America.
The Chinese Horse
As we pursue this, another question comes up: what about the idea of a Chinese company expanding into the US and purchasing - or even licensing - a brand that has a decent base of awareness and possibly some nostalgic value but has grown a bit old, with a view to re-invigorating that brand as its own?
I would bet on it happening, but the record to date suggests that there are some companies who still don’t seem to understand what to do with their brands once they’ve got them.
Lenovo chose to drop IBM completely, having failed to figure out how to make the most of their permission to use the brand for five years.
Nanjing Automobile Corporation (NAC) has picked up MG, but at the moment it seems to be in something of a holding pattern - they are still making the cars and selling them in the UK, sure. But they’re missing an opportunity to begin building excitement among the enthusiast crowd in the US that would go for the MG ragtops.
TCL controls the RCA brand through its ownership of Thompson, but rather than put the brand to work for TCL's own expansion abroad, the company has decided to license the brand to third parties.
All of which suggests nothing more than what we already know - that Chinese companies are still getting their collective heads around brands, brand value, and how to put both of those to work to address their particular challenges.
But the glocal branding strategy is a compelling option for Chinese companies looking to enter overseas markets - why spend all that money to build brand awareness when you can pick up a familiar brand on the cheap and spend your money on paint and polish?
Brokers and Markets
Setting aside for a moment the still-developing concept of branding in China, what stands in the way of an approach like this is that few Chinese executives have a clear view of what dormant or distressed brands are available, and how they compare with each other. There are people in each market around the world, however, who would be able to identify, assess, and value these brands, who could also help Chinese firms (or, indeed, firms from any other country) acquire them.
Let’s call this “brand brokerage,” and the people and agencies who do it “brand brokers.”
Once there is a decent group of brand brokers, a global market in these brands can form, making it far easier for companies who own dormant brands to value them, and much simpler for others to find and value brands they might acquire, and then purchase them.
This makes acquiring a glocal brand to help drive expansion into a specific market a simple process and a logical part of a local marketing effort. Indeed, if I were a betting man, I would wager that the largest of such brokerages would wind up parts of the world’s major marketing groups - like WPP and Publicis.
Upsides on the side
There are three significant side benefits to creating a market in distressed and dormant brands:
First, such a market means that acquiring a brand no longer needs to be a process that involves investment bankers and other middlemen, and will thus drop transaction costs significantly. Even the brokerages are going to be subject to some heavy pricing pressure - especially those that form a part of a larger agency group, who will be pressed to drop commissions in return for broader marketing business.
Second, a market would help companies - and their auditors, investors, and others - understand what their brands are worth. In a world where many firms are seeking to value their intellectual property, dormant brands are like baubles in the attic - beyond the sentimental value, you never have any idea what they’re worth. An open market would take much of the guesswork out of the process. Having a tough year? Unload a couple of brands and pump up the cash flow, or use distressed brands to help the balance sheet a little.
Finally, it would give another option to companies who want to enter a new market. Instead of automatically assuming that a brand would need to be built from scratch - entailing not only more money but valuable time - there is a “build or buy” choice that could be balanced and made with relative ease.
There would be a number of challenges to this model, but there are many paths to the creation of a brand market that would ease and speed the process of globalization - or “internationalization,” as Chinese companies prefer to say - particularly from the standpoint of growing multinationals from emerging markets.
In the Hutong
Downloading music
2126 hrs.
Donald DePalma, author of Business Without Borders: A Strategic Guide to Global Marketing puts CNNIC's recent report on China's Internet market into perspective in an article on Chief Marketer.
He introduces a compelling concept he calls the Online GDP, which basically translates to the buying power of the online population.
According to DePalma, China's 210 million Internet users account for only 1.1% of the world's online GDP. He doesn't give us enough information to check his figures, so it is hard to judge the validity of his claim.
Let us assume for a moment, however, that what he says is true. His point is simply this - don't make a decision about localizing for a market based on the number of people it has, but based on its buying power. All of which is easy to understand and hard to dispute.
Or is it?
I have a couple of problems with using the e-GDP as the sole means to evaluate whether it makes sense to come to China.
The e-GDP figure is static. What we need to understand the value of a given market is both that figure AND its rate of growth. I would bet, given the fact that China's population is slowly aging and becoming more prosperous as it expands AND that China's overall GDP continues to grow at double-digit rates, that the growth rate in China's e-GDP is fairly spectacular compared to other markets. At some point, that 1.1% is going to grow into something much larger.
The e-GDP figure assumes that Chinese users confer the same priority on all goods - or, more correctly, it fails to take into account that some goods and services are better sold online in China.
Similarly, the e-GDP figure does not tell you how badly advertisers on your site want to reach online users in China.
Finally, the e-GDP does not give an idea of what percentage of a country's overall GDP is represented by Internet users. In other words, if you are already IN China and looking to identify places where a certain group of buyers goes, an overall figure is unhelpful.
I like DePalma's analysis, but I think he (and we) need to dig deeper. To rush to China purely on the basis of 210 million users is madness. But to stay away on the basis of a snapshot of the market runs the risk of missing very real opportunities.
Starbucks Guomao 2
Discovering foreigners are a rare species
1144 hrs.
From atop Ogilvy's digital watchtower, Kaiser Kuo points us to a highly readable Clay Chandler story in Fortune introducing China Mobile's Wang Jianzhou as "China's Mobile Maestro."
The story is a bit of a fluff piece (Chandler comes off as a bit of a fanboy), but it is interesting beyond the content. Wang is not normally a talky person with the foreign media. For that reason, one wonders why he's suddenly making himself more accessible to the global media.
You could attribute it to a long-overdue realization that the CEO of such a company needs to have some global visibility, but I wouldn't buy it. For all of their global ambitions, China Mobile's cash-cow - and its best near-term growth prospects - are in China.
There are probably a host of reasons for Wang to raise his profile, but one of them has to be a desire to buy for China Mobile greater independence from the fickle whims of regulators in Beijing. Having a moderately high profile amongst influential audiences overseas, and having a voice among those audiences, is a route to enhanced power and influence here in Beijing. A few pieces like Chandler's, and people will start to see Wang as a cross between Craig McCaw and Jack Welch.
Of course, his old colleagues at the Ministry of Information Industries can't be happy. In the eyes of the regulators, China Mobile responds first and foremost to the direction of the government. Wang's quiet, deliberate creation of a base of influence in China and abroad inveighs against that.
And well it should. If China is serious about creating companies that are both local and global champions, the enterprises that began as the wards of their respective ministries must leave the nest, no matter angst that might cause the aparatchiks. China Mobile will never be a world-class company until its responsiveness to its customers and the capital markets is no less - if not more - than what it gives government officials.
Wang is going to need the support of cool heads, and soon. The worst kept secret in China's mobile industry is how much the country's operators and handset manufacturers hate TD-SCDMA, which was described to me by one insider as "a politician's dream and an engineer's nightmare." Worse, there is growing rumbling about another forced restructuring of the mobile phone industry that would give Wang stronger competition and may even see him compelled to shed some chunks of his own company.
If I were to make a prediction for 2008, I would say we will be seeing many more puff pieces about Chinese CEOs. The importance of China, the business media's need for a stream of stars, and the tsunami of foreign journalists coming to China in the next eight months makes that a sucker bet.
One of the best profiles I've seen so far is James Fallows' profile of Broad CEO Zhang Yue in The Atlantic last March.
Starbucks, Fortune Plaza, Beijing
Hunkered in a little corner by the plug
0958 hrs.
Geoffrey James over at BNET writes a well-reasoned condemnation of the brochure as a piece of marketing, for B2B at least.
Read it. He's right. We've all evolved beyond that.
In the Hutong
Minding the store
2018 hrs.
One of the profound trends that is taking place across China today that I haven't seen anybody pick up on is the rebirth of hobbies.
For much of China's history, hobbies have been limited to a tiny elite with a lot of extra time on their hands. Most hobbies were cultural in nature (brush painting, collecting, gardening), but some in the merchant and mandarin classes had some eclectic interests (I'm speaking of the non-prurient variety, here. This is a family blog.) Hobbies, in other words, were not a part of China's mainstream culture, and those that were - kite flying, bird raising, calligraphy - were considered by most Chinese to be something for old folks.
That has all begun to change over the past decade. Growing numbers of Chinese not only have the leisure time to pursue activities outside of work, family, and school, they also have the financial wherewithal to pursue their newfound avocations. Media are carrying more stories about hobbies, and the Internet makes information about their choice of hobbies readily accessible.
What is interesting about this is that hobbies create a new class of consumer for goods and services already available, and create entirely new markets for products that were never of much interest before.
Some examples:
Here is a simple truth: if there is a hobby somewhere, somebody in China is practicing it, and the numbers are probably growing.
Some of the other hobbies that are showing early signs of major growth:
Watch for this trend to grow in importance over the next five years, and to begin to change the nature of several industries.
The question each of us needs to ask is this: how are China's hobbyists going to change our business?
Somewhere in the CBD
Cafe crawling
1535 hrs.
Over in the UK, the environmental organization Global Action Plan has produced a sobering report on the amount of energy used by information technology. The full report, entitled An Inefficient Truth, along with a more quickly digestible executive summary, can be accessed at their website.
The general point is not new: IT is an acknowledged and growing source of energy suckage. What makes this report so compelling is the factoids that it cranks out.
Any fair assessment of the situation would suggest that all of this noise is driven in part by a growing group of enviro-luddists who generally see technology as something of an unnatural scourge. It would also be wrong to suggest that the industry is indifferent to the issue of the energy used by computers and other technology devices.
What I derive from the growing battle between green and tech is that the technology industries have much to gain by focusing their justly vaunted engineering prowess on making their companies, their processes, and their products meaningfully more sustainable.
Inefficient Informatization?
The central government has been actively encouraging the widespread adoption of information technology for over a decade, seeing in the microprocessor an answer to China's discouraging productivity and an elixir for the nation's ailing state-owned enterprises. The audience bought the messages: a survey completed by The Economist Intelligence Unit and SAP in 2004 found that something like 95% of China's executives had seen the future of their businesses, and it was information technology.
If you believe the statistics, China is adding computing power and Internet users at remarkable rates. As "informatization" (the government's term for economic transformation via information technology) spreads, China looks to follow the rest of the world down an economic path lined with power-sucking machines.
It remains remarkable that the nation's policymakers have yet to draw a connection between their commitment to creating an innovation-based economy and the opportunity implicit in the nation's (and the world's) need for more efficient, more sustainable servers, laptops, desktops, and handhelds.
I do not expect that to last for long.
Efficient Action
There are some very intelligent people just below the director general level in the Ministry of Information Industries, in the State Environmental Protection Agency, the National Development and Reform Commission and other bodies who already see the connection. The challenge is forging them into a bloc to share information and to begin polling industry on what is possible in this regard. A good step would be putting An Inefficient Truth into the hands of one of these quiet crusaders and letting it circulate.
Hmm...
Meantime, this is a superb opportunity for companies who are already focused on dropping energy use in laptops and data centers to stand up and get proactive. Not to name names, but Intel, Apple, HP, Dell, and the leader of the greener computer pack - Lenovo - should publicly take the lead in calling on themselves and others to do more in China in this regard.
Efficient Informatization belongs alongside Independent Innovation. This is one area, however, where the foreigners can and should claim a lead, and use that as a starting point for action that would be both financially rewarding and environmentally responsible.
We need one more ingredient to fire up the greening of IT in China, and that would be an NGO who would be acceptable to all parties to coordinate the effort. My first thought comes to the United Nations Development Program, mostly because I worked with them on an electrical appliance efficiency program about eight years ago and their efforts have borne fruit.
Any ideas about who else might complete the triad?
Starbucks, China World Trade Center 2
Chilling by the window
0946 hrs.
Shanghai-based Yann Lombard Platet gives vociferous voice on ChinaTechNews to something I have been telling my clients for some time about running online campaigns on social networking sites.
He says "just listen."
He's right.
He and I differ in our ideas of what it means to listen - I favor a much more passive approach to engagement on social networking sites, but in direction we agree.
There is an old saying that we were given two ears and one mouth, suggesting we should listen twice as much as we speak. Marketers are not traditionally wired to listen, but to find more effective ways of talking. Yann's point is that when marketing online, this is not appropriate.
My point is that with any kind of marketing, the relative value of a marketers ability to talk is plunging, and the value of his/her ability to listen is growing. It is not only the growth of Web 2.0 that is driving this change, but the skyrocketing importance of word-of-mouth, quantitative measurement, analytics, customer relationship management, and one-to-one marketing. Every single one of these is about listening, not talking.
Marketing changed since grad school, guys. Catch up.