Monday, January 25, 2010

Google in China: Hubris, A Bad Fit, Or What?

Lower-income Chinese people—perhaps one should say "lower-income students and their families"—care deeply about access to the Internet. (The photo is from a lower-income home of a student and her parents in a small town in the Southeast of China). But it seems Google is not a core part of the desire to be connected, to learn, and participate in the Internet. Google has not met its potential in China, and now, after an encounter with some security "problems" (to put it mildly) they are making noises about packing up and moving out.

The recent flap about Google's presence in China is, indeed, more than a flap. Google claims that their servers were violated, along with some others. The idea that some official entity got to mucking about not only with Google but with some US corporate property in cyberspace seems not to be part of the Chinese discussion, but news about Google's unhappiness with Chinese censorship certainly is.. To be sure, the security issue is an important one, and censorship is, too. But another issue is the difference bewteen Internet use in China and in the US (and elsewhere).

Google is not, presently, a good fit for China.
By now, most folks who are interested in Internet in China are aware of the power of MSN and QQ. Not everyone sees this as a basic difference in communication practice. It might be easy to pin the difference on "cultural difference," but this begs the question of where that difference comes from. Tricia Wang lays out the issues in a lengthy and important post on her blog. Her comments neatly summarize the experience of our research teams (and my personal experience living from time to time in Beijing and here and there) over the past ten or so years. Tyler Rooker at his 中关村 blog has some pithy remaks about Google's hubris that are worth a read, too). Chinese sites like Baidu (for search) and TuDou (for video) are simply more relevant in China.

The differences among Google and other web tools in China extends to mobile phone use, too. It is is related to the pragmatic constraints of access, charges for phone and Internet use, and the services Google offers. Here are some of the issues (covered well by Tricia; I add a bit to her list, here):
  • Google doesn't provide access to the rich media content that other sites do.
  • The name "Google" is not well understood people aren't sure how to spell it.
  • Google has not tapped into the sense of national pride as other domestic IT products have done. Consider the line of peripherals and monitors made by the "aigo" company. Aigo sounds just like "aiguo," which means love of country or patriotism (爱国).
  • Google is not a player in instant messaging. QQ, the biggest player in instant messaging in China (and, probably, in the world) is much more than an instant messaging system. Its a game platform, it is always integrated in Chinese mobile phones, and it has brand exensions into cute, cuddly products in QQ stores. It has lent its name to a small automobile, the QQ car, which is, by the way, very 可爱的, very "cute" (sounds like QQ). Nothing wrong with a little alliterative fun in IT.
  • Google is not really a player in the mobile space in China, where asynchronous communication is cheaper and preferred. Mobile phones are nearly ubiquitous regardless of income. Few people talk much on their mobile phones. People get their business done quickly on the phone, unless they are rich. Ordinary people text plenty, but minutes are expensive. Text and QQ are not. Where is Google?
  • The competition is working in another space in which Google is inactive: buying and selling little low-cost goodies related to games, identity, and just plain fun. QQ has developed Q coin, a virtual currency that is so successful that the Chinese government is stepping in to regulate folks who trade in it. (QQ says Qcoin is a commodity, not a currency, btw).
  • Google makes sense for richer, post-graduate people; there is enormous interest in the Internet as an educational resource but for lower-income people Google is off the map. A decent desktop is certainly not off the map, even for folks of humble means (like the household in the photograph). IT matters to families who care about their children's future; Google is not seen as a partner in that regard. Why not?
Google has plenty of creative dreamers, but it seems they don't look into the deeper nexus of constraints and incentives that shape and direct practices in different national contexts. I'm sure there are plenty of people at Google who "get it," but it has been my experience that too few in the IT community have a clear understanding of the broadly cultural (and structural) differences in IT practices. A few years ago I met a high-level executive of a very large IT firm who was completely unaware of QQ, of how MSN and QQ are the preferred way of communicating on the Internet in China. How many in Silicon Valley are similarly uninformed?

Tricia Wang is quite correct. It would be a pity if Google were to give up on China, and it would help neither China nor Google nor the future of the conversation about Internet freedom and privacy if they were to give up the ship in the Middle Kingdom.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Travels to Tier X Cities


When marketers (and other lao wai) talk about China, they often speak of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III Cities. There is no standard definition, really, for what makes a Tier II City. Generally speaking, Tier I means Beijing, Shanghai, and probably Chongching. It could include Tianjin, too, since that is a municipality like the other two, and so does not have a province around it.

Anyhow, a client interested in an aspect of personal care has asked us to visit Lin 'An and another smaller city in Henan. They call them "Tier III" Cities. Fair enough. Yet Lin'An is quite close to the richest city in China. Contrary to popular opinion, the richest city is probably not Shanghai. It is Hangzhou, the ancient city by the lake (these days, pretty much surrounding the whole of the lake!).

Marketers often look for a certain income group when they are doing consumer research. This makes sense. Manufacturers of consumer goods know that it pays to target their products and their messages to people who can afford them, or whose tastes or desires or daily life practices push (or pull) them to use their products. Why waste time trying to sell a Chevrolet to someone who is only interested in a Bugatti? Or why try to sell a Bugatti to someone really needs a used Dodge Dart?

But sometimes, a company will get the idea that there is a magical cutoff, some category of person that exists in reality who can be identified by income alone. This is rarely the case. So someone in Lin'An who is, in local terms, a "low income" person, may seem pretty well off in a small county town in Henan Province.

Jo Yung is on her way to Lin'An now. And she has some consumer research planned for the client. No doubt she'll be hanging around in streets like these.

(Thanks to Ben Ross, whose photographic and written documentary work is worth finding on the web, and who we have the pleasure of working with from time to time).