Branding China

AssassinsMace · Dec 22, 2013

airsuperiority said:
I agree and disagree with ideas presented here. It's for certain that prejudice exists and foreign protectionism exists for all the competitive reasons. However the same time I still believe there are also the ones with ethical issues, poor quality. In that sense, I believe prejudice exists, but only go to a certain extent. The problematic practices, rules of law, governance, regulations, and corruptions certainly do affect qualities of certain products, then you have combination of factual concerns and fabricated prejudice at the same time.

Actually when I come to think of it, the most famous Chinese brand right now is Wechat.

How many of those foreign brand names are made in China? The fact is a foreign corporation doesn't want good quality because that means less replacements are bought. It's like how cell phone companies in the US can easily stop smartphone thefts by preventing stolen phones from being reused. They can render a stolen phone useless. But they don't do that because the stolen phone means another paying customer and the person who had their phone stolen has to buy a replacement. I see problematic practices, rules of law, governance, regulations all in play here.

BTW, China is still the 2nd largest economy in the world. The critics that repeat the problems for China say India is a good example of those things. Where are they economically? Is it true that India are those things China is not? No matter the answer all it says it's not those things that make an economy or a brand name. And if you read the latest, quality in China is going up while at the same time what the critics point as the problem are supposedly getting worse... they say.

Equation · Dec 22, 2013

airsuperiority said:
Why are you dragging off-topic again? It's totally irrelevant and red herring.

Why do you have a problem with my opinion? It's not off topic, but related to what Kurt have said before (and strangely that you don't find that as a red-herring) and I responded in kind.

airsuperiority · Dec 23, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
How many of those foreign brand names are made in China? The fact is a foreign corporation doesn't want good quality because that means less replacements are bought. It's like how cell phone companies in the US can easily stop smartphone thefts by preventing stolen phones from being reused. They can render a stolen phone useless. But they don't do that because the stolen phone means another paying customer and the person who had their phone stolen has to buy a replacement. I see problematic practices, rules of law, governance, regulations all in play here.

BTW, China is still the 2nd largest economy in the world. The critics that repeat the problems for China say India is a good example of those things. Where are they economically? Is it true that India are those things China is not? No matter the answer all it says it's not those things that make an economy or a brand name. And if you read the latest, quality in China is going up while at the same time what the critics point as the problem are supposedly getting worse... they say.

I don't know how this always somehow relates a criticism of other foreign firms when we're talking about China...

1. Having studied marketing myself, I also know these phones are meant with short longevity for the preference of keep buying their new products. Something also done in IT which they sometimes called patching. So what you said I understand and agree. However again since we're talking about China I wonder why this suddenly leads to outward criticisms of other firms and places. I also don't think there are exactly any specific bills and regulations passed that enforces how phones are built, so I want to know how's that problems with "rules of law, governance, regulations".

2. I also disagree foreign corporation don't want good quality. Most of the foreign brands, like Apple, have their goods manufactured in China, and they are actually good quality. This shows that China can manufacture quality goods. However so why some Chinese-manufactured goods are ok, and some aren't? I believe it is again my argument of ethical practices, rules of law, governance, regulations, corruptions, etc. MNCs should generally expect almost a standard quality for their products regardless of origins of manufacturers(unless tailored to specific target markets, and sometimes they do have practice issues too), so generally for consistent results and from their R&D and productions, expectations would also be relatively consistent practices, QC, production methods, guidelines, enforcements, material, and standards. In this sense, this is when I believe products that come out are relatively good quality, despite made in China. (Or could be that they expect or enforce rigid QC and methods and what not, so practices were made to ensure the results) I believe this is applicable to many situations and cases, and even to China's indigenous military industrial complex and aerospace, where the PLA also expresses demanding criteria, QC, and funding that ensures everything is done up to notch. We can look at CAC and SAC and see how competitive they were in producing their 5th gens, and I think that speaks it. In fact, I am even optimistic that Chinese engineering can match German and Japanese engineering some day, and it's soon to be. Basically places where rigid demands and regulations and governance takes place, China demonstrates to be capable of producing high quality goods.

On the other hand, grassroots and smaller firms, where there's lack of enforcement, regulations, proper governance and what not, permits corruptions and other poor practices to take place, which as a result reduces competitiveness in the proper sense and permits firms to exploit loopholes or not to follow/monitor their practices much closely.

airsuperiority · Dec 23, 2013

Equation said:
Why do you have a problem with my opinion? It's not off topic, but related to what Kurt have said before (and strangely that you don't find that as a red-herring) and I responded in kind.

He was mentioning the defence people will make for China in the topic(then subsequently provided something more relevant to the thread's topic), but then you brought up Snowden and NSA. However the original topic was China brands, so I don't know how NSA and Snowden comes into this topic, especially you didn't even demonstrate how you relate it to the topic.

I don't have a problem with you making opinions; you do make good opinions and good points too, but there are some opinions you make that is confusing at best, or they don't lead anywhere because of the structures of what you're trying to say doesn't make it convincing. (the natures of those ideas, relevance, logical flow, coherency)

AssassinsMace · Dec 23, 2013

airsuperiority said:
I don't know how this always somehow relates a criticism of other foreign firms when we're talking about China...

1. Having studied marketing myself, I also know these phones are meant with short longevity for the preference of keep buying their new products. Something also done in IT which they sometimes called patching. So what you said I understand and agree. However again since we're talking about China I wonder why this suddenly leads to outward criticisms of other firms and places. I also don't think there are exactly any specific bills and regulations passed that enforces how phones are built, so I want to know how's that problems with "rules of law, governance, regulations".

2. I also disagree foreign corporation don't want good quality. Most of the foreign brands, like Apple, have their goods manufactured in China, and they are actually good quality. This shows that China can manufacture quality goods. However so why some Chinese-manufactured goods are ok, and some aren't? I believe it is again my argument of ethical practices, rules of law, governance, regulations, corruptions, etc. MNCs should generally expect almost a standard quality for their products regardless of origins of manufacturers(unless tailored to specific target markets, and sometimes they do have practice issues too), so generally for consistent results and from their R&D and productions, expectations would also be relatively consistent practices, QC, production methods, guidelines, enforcements, material, and standards. In this sense, this is when I believe products that come out are relatively good quality, despite made in China. (Or could be that they expect or enforce rigid QC and methods and what not, so practices were made to ensure the results) I believe this is applicable to many situations and cases, and even to China's indigenous military industrial complex and aerospace, where the PLA also expresses demanding criteria, QC, and funding that ensures everything is done up to notch. We can look at CAC and SAC and see how competitive they were in producing their 5th gens, and I think that speaks it. In fact, I am even optimistic that Chinese engineering can match German and Japanese engineering some day, and it's soon to be. Basically places where rigid demands and regulations and governance takes place, China demonstrates to be capable of producing high quality goods.

On the other hand, grassroots and smaller firms, where there's lack of enforcement, regulations, proper governance and what not, permits corruptions and other poor practices to take place, which as a result reduces competitiveness in the proper sense and permits firms to exploit loopholes or not to follow/monitor their practices much closely.

Are you saying Foxconn is an ethical company? You don't seem to realize that's why China is so attractive for outsourcers is because the factories are already there. Foreign corporations don't need to spend money on building a factory for themselves. And these very factories are also the ones that make Chinese brands. And you think foreign corporations are not a part or have anything to do with this discussion? If you think foreign corporations care about quality, why is there lead paint on toys? Blame it on China? No blame it on unethical business practices of the foreign corporation that outsources. For example Wal-Mart goes to China and they call in factory owners to a meeting. They gather around a table and Wal-Mart places a new product they want manufactured on the table. The factory owners bid to make the product for Wal-Mart. The lowest bidder wins meaning quality means nothing. Then Wal-Mart takes the winning bidder aside and tells him or her to cut the cost 15%. So how does the already lowest bidder make it cheaper than he or she said could manufacture for? He or she for example cuts corners and uses paint with lead in it because lead is the cheapest way to add shine to paint. That's the Wal-Mart model because they're one of the biggest most successful corporations in the world. When Americans were outraged at poisonous metals such as lead being discovered in toys, why did the President of Mattel first apologize to the American public and the very next day have to fly to China to apologize to the Chinese? Isn't it all China's fault and their practices which is the reason why there's poison metals in toys sold in the US? It's because Mattel knew those poisonous materials were being used to make those toys because again corporations look to maximize profits first and finding the most cheapest materials to produce them is the way they do it. If foreign corporations are so ethical, why do they exploit slave and child labor in China as is charged? Why do we always hear now how foreign corporations are leaving China because labor costs are rising? When labor costs rise that means people are finding better jobs that pay more. Wouldn't an ethical foreign corporation be please at the rise in wages and not leave to go a cheaper location they can exploit? The whole point of outsourcing is cheapening costs not anything else. It's slave labor as charged and yet they're exploiting it. Maybe slave and child labor is exaggerated? Maybe like the reasons you say are China's problem with quality and brand?

Did you forget all these labor violations that are charged against China and yet you think foreign corporations are ethical? The whole reason why those charges are made is because of foreign corporations outsourcing. Do you see those supposedly care about labor conditions in China making a campaign on countries where literal slavery still exists? Do you see American unions campaigning against these countries? No, because their target is the jobs that are outsourced meaning it's all about foreign corporations exploiting unethical treatment of labor. What about those garment factories in Bangladesh where the workers were locked-in while the fire was raging. How many people were killed? Did you forget those people killed were making clothes for US department stores? You think they check? You think they care? Yeah only until after something goes tragically wrong.

You still think that the foreign corporation exploiting cheap labor treats those workers better hence why those products turn out to be better quality while the same laborer that makes products for a domestic company is lesser quality? The criticism of these foreign corporations is they don't check hence why they feign ignorance when all those workers are burned to death making clothes for Americans or laborers jump off buildings to kill themselves making iPhones. Why don't we hear about the more people that are killed making products for domestic companies?

SampanViking · Dec 23, 2013

airsuperiority said:
I don't agree completely on the West not-innovative argument though. I think we've all seen a fair share of innovators rising up throughout the century, and also many more at grassroots level.

I do not think that is an argument I made.
My argument is that very few people have the ability to innovate and that such people are produced in roughly the same proportion the world over. Government policy cannot produce more innovators, but it can create a more benign environment for them to thrive.

Obviously the West with its vast historical reserves of Capital have had the advantage of being able to develop and support innovators both indigenous and those attracted from abroad where no such environment exists. When you hear Chinese leaders exhort Innovation, it is the creation of the environment that there policy is directed.

Beyond that, I think China is showing is quite busy being innovative, but that these Innovations are not the sexy high profile variety, but rather the industrial, relating to machinery and process. These are critical areas though as they will improve the efficiency and capability of Chinese Industry at a time when wages are rising and the work force is reaching full capacity. These innovations also will help lead machinery exports, which are a critical area of the cycle.

Much of Chinese Industry is still about making existing products but faster and cheaper (very important factors in their own right). I think people are waiting for Chinese to invent the next high profile consumer product like the PC or iphone. This will come and it will come in new industries that China will be critical in creating and consolidating. If you look at the current cutting edge across the board and compare these to situations/problems which are of great significance to China, then you will develop some idea of where these innovations will most likely occur.

airsuperiority · Dec 23, 2013

SampanViking said:
I do not think that is an argument I made.
My argument is that very few people have the ability to innovate and that such people are produced in roughly the same proportion the world over. Government policy cannot produce more innovators, but it can create a more benign environment for them to thrive.

Obviously the West with its vast historical reserves of Capital have had the advantage of being able to develop and support innovators both indigenous and those attracted from abroad where no such environment exists. When you hear Chinese leaders exhort Innovation, it is the creation of the environment that there policy is directed.

Beyond that, I think China is showing is quite busy being innovative, but that these Innovations are not the sexy high profile variety, but rather the industrial, relating to machinery and process. These are critical areas though as they will improve the efficiency and capability of Chinese Industry at a time when wages are rising and the work force is reaching full capacity. These innovations also will help lead machinery exports, which are a critical area of the cycle.

Much of Chinese Industry is still about making existing products but faster and cheaper (very important factors in their own right). I think people are waiting for Chinese to invent the next high profile consumer product like the PC or iphone. This will come and it will come in new industries that China will be critical in creating and consolidating. If you look at the current cutting edge across the board and compare these to situations/problems which are of great significance to China, then you will develop some idea of where these innovations will most likely occur.

Well-said. Thanks for the clarification and the nice post.

airsuperiority · Dec 23, 2013

AssassinsMace said:
Are you saying Foxconn is an ethical company? You don't seem to realize that's why China is so attractive for outsourcers is because the factories are already there. Foreign corporations don't need to spend money on building a factory for themselves. And these very factories are also the ones that make Chinese brands. And you think foreign corporations are not a part or have anything to do with this discussion? If you think foreign corporations care about quality, why is there lead paint on toys? Blame it on China? No blame it on unethical business practices of the foreign corporation that outsources. For example Wal-Mart goes to China and they call in factory owners to a meeting. They gather around a table and Wal-Mart places a new product they want manufactured on the table. The factory owners bid to make the product for Wal-Mart. The lowest bidder wins meaning quality means nothing. Then Wal-Mart takes the winning bidder aside and tells him or her to cut the cost 15%. So how does the already lowest bidder make it cheaper than he or she said could manufacture for? He or she for example cuts corners and uses paint with lead in it because lead is the cheapest way to add shine to paint. That's the Wal-Mart model because they're one of the biggest most successful corporations in the world. When Americans were outraged at poisonous metals such as lead being discovered in toys, why did the President of Mattel first apologize to the American public and the very next day have to fly to China to apologize to the Chinese? Isn't it all China's fault and their practices which is the reason why there's poison metals in toys sold in the US? It's because Mattel knew those poisonous materials were being used to make those toys because again corporations look to maximize profits first and finding the most cheapest materials to produce them is the way they do it. If foreign corporations are so ethical, why do they exploit slave and child labor in China as is charged? Why do we always hear now how foreign corporations are leaving China because labor costs are rising? When labor costs rise that means people are finding better jobs that pay more. Wouldn't an ethical foreign corporation be please at the rise in wages and not leave to go a cheaper location they can exploit? The whole point of outsourcing is cheapening costs not anything else. It's slave labor as charged and yet they're exploiting it. Maybe slave and child labor is exaggerated? Maybe like the reasons you say are China's problem with quality and brand?

Did you forget all these labor violations that are charged against China and yet you think foreign corporations are ethical? The whole reason why those charges are made is because of foreign corporations outsourcing. Do you see those supposedly care about labor conditions in China making a campaign on countries where literal slavery still exists? Do you see American unions campaigning against these countries? No, because their target is the jobs that are outsourced meaning it's all about foreign corporations exploiting unethical treatment of labor. What about those garment factories in Bangladesh where the workers were locked-in while the fire was raging. How many people were killed? Did you forget those people killed were making clothes for US department stores? You think they check? You think they care? Yeah only until after something goes tragically wrong.

You still think that the foreign corporation exploiting cheap labor treats those workers better hence why those products turn out to be better quality while the same laborer that makes products for a domestic company is lesser quality? The criticism of these foreign corporations is they don't check hence why they feign ignorance when all those workers are burned to death making clothes for Americans or laborers jump off buildings to kill themselves making iPhones. Why don't we hear about the more people that are killed making products for domestic companies?

If only you expand your arguments in the first post, that would have made things a lot clearer earlier on. I totally agree with you when you bring this up. There's always the sweatshop issues (which I almost forgot myself) which is definitely in sync with what you say. It's definitely true that many MNC FDI into China, in particular many from the US, that exploits the conditions that permit them for maximum labor and minimal cost.

However, my original intended argument which I made the mistake of also not clarifying, was referring to the governance in the US vs governance within China where the state's rule of law and political conditions also influence/restricts the types of practices permitted within their borders. So where the US may have rules that audits businesses in a certain way and many bills and regulations and rules to oversee operations (again not perfect), the political scenario in China could be different, and that could be a possible spawn of issues affecting industry practices, which can also perhaps influence the performance of firms and brands.

Other than that, like some members say, it's possible some brands are meant for within China, while perhaps expansion into competing internationally are something some are just beginning to work on, and they will have to go through another learning curve.

Also, why do you always seem so worked up in your posts?

AssassinsMace · Dec 23, 2013

airsuperiority said:
If only you expand your arguments in the first post, that would have made things a lot clearer earlier on. I totally agree with you when you bring this up. There's always the sweatshop issues (which I almost forgot myself) which is definitely in sync with what you say. It's definitely true that many MNC FDI into China, in particular many from the US, that exploits the conditions that permit them for maximum labor and minimal cost.

However, my original intended argument which I made the mistake of also not clarifying, was referring to the governance in the US vs governance within China where the state's rule of law and political conditions also influence/restricts the types of practices permitted within their borders. So where the US may have rules that audits businesses in a certain way and many bills and regulations and rules to oversee operations (again not perfect), the political scenario in China could be different, and that could be a possible spawn of issues affecting industry practices, which can also perhaps influence the performance of firms and brands.

Other than that, like some members say, it's possible some brands are meant for within China, while perhaps expansion into competing internationally are something some are just beginning to work on, and they will have to go through another learning curve.

Also, why do you always seem so worked up in your posts?

I can say the same thing about your theme of criticism of China of late as being worked up.

Please don't confused my detailed arguments countering your points as being "worked-up." My detailed analysis is called backing up what I've stated. You seem to be going by a lot of romantic assumptions that are proven invalid by the very examples I gave you. If I used romanticism to back my opinions, it would be looked upon as bull. I've countered your romanticism with the facts. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with that. If anything I find it strange that you blame everything wrong with China and how to resolve it with the same thing over and over again. And it's the typical criticism for every issue the critics have with China. You have this romanticize "go to" one canned answer for every problem with China. If we were to believe all what the critics say, then China would not be the 2nd largest economy in the world. So from the get go anyone who uses the same criticism of what's wrong with China and how to resolve it has to be questioned and challenged.

I can tell you don't like my criticism of Hong Kong politics. You seem to want to blame the same thing and how to resolve the issue of rude Mainland Chinese with exactly what you say here on Chinese brand names. I have given the historical facts that the stereotype of Chinese bad behavior goes further back than when Mainland Chinese were allowed to travel outside their borders. So where did the rude stereotype that you help perpetuate against Mainlanders come from? People from Hong Kong and Taiwan. That says the people who judge are hypocritically no different and no more "civilized" than the accused. The difference between you and I is you go by what you believe. I go by seeing the contradictions in people's arguments. That's the best argument. Just like when you say that foreign corporations are more ethical and that's why, even though their products are made in China just like domestic companies with all the problems you say why China can't make a brand worthy name, the product made by the same workers is better quality? I don't have to go with what romantic notions I believe to counter that argument. When you murder someone, you can't say that someone else wanted to kill them more so they're worse than you. Same thing when foreign corporations use the same slave labor as is accused of China. I go by what critics of China who you seem to sympathize say. What more better to counter someone's argument than by using their own side's words against them. People don't like it that I have a good enough memory to see the hypocrisy and contradiction. They count on people forgetting. People who contradict themselves or are hypocrites aren't motivated by helping others. There's an automatic dislike by everyone of hypocrites. Why? Because hypocrites are motivated by selfishness not altruism. That's why, like in thieves, there's no honor among hypocrites because they know each other's motivations. So what does it mean when the China critics are contradicting their own arguments that I can point out? They're certainly not looking out for the best interests of China.

Equation · Dec 23, 2013

airsuperiority said:
He was mentioning the defence people will make for China in the topic(then subsequently provided something more relevant to the thread's topic), but then you brought up Snowden and NSA. However the original topic was China brands, so I don't know how NSA and Snowden comes into this topic, especially you didn't even demonstrate how you relate it to the topic.

I don't have a problem with you making opinions; you do make good opinions and good points too, but there are some opinions you make that is confusing at best, or they don't lead anywhere because of the structures of what you're trying to say doesn't make it convincing. (the natures of those ideas, relevance, logical flow, coherency)

1. The subject on this thread is about Chinese brands and their companies NOT about government.

2. I responded in kind according to Kurt's original post about how he thinks Chinese government NOT Chinese companies actions that's not related to the topic of this thread. So how does Kurt posting this irrelevant source:

Document 9: A ChinaFile Translation | ChinaFile
Is this an original document? Then it highlights how the chinese gouvernment brands the Western countries and tries to brand itself in conflict with them. Not a good start for positive branding in many fields, because it undermines mutual trust:

counts in your opinion as relevant?

3. So why are you singling me out when it he who started it, and I am only stating the obvious to his post?

Branding China

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

Equation

Lieutenant General

airsuperiority

Captain

airsuperiority

Captain

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

SampanViking

The Capitalist

airsuperiority

Captain

airsuperiority

Captain

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

Equation

Lieutenant General