August 31, 2009
Ralph Lauren in China -- 15 Stores to Open -- Significant IP Challenge
As his employer plans to roll out 15 stores in China,
George Hrdina, president of Ralph Lauren’s Asian business, said in an interview in Hong Kong. “We do more Ralph Lauren business on the island of Manhattan, New York than we do in Hong Kong and China.”
What an extraordinary public statement! Generally, execs are loathe to give any indication of sales volume in specific locations. One wonders if the company breaks out numbers by geography in its financial statements? As luxury sales slow in the West, the paradise of China passes through the minds of sales execs who must raise their numbers or, at least, stanch the bleeding.
Luxury brand Gucci plans to open two to four more stores this year in China, after opening its 28th outlet yesterday. Gucci chief executive Patrizio Di Marco is undeterred by uncertainty in the global economy as China is set to lead future luxury consumption.
Counterfeit Lauren has been a favorite of consumers (both Chinese and foreign) in Greater China for 25 years. How, other than by purchase in a Lauren store, can a luxury buyer ensure that what he's purchased is the real thing? And what, frankly, is the difference between what passes, often, as superb fake and the genuine?
In 1988, a garment maker in Taiwan showed me both and I could not tell the difference. Granted, I was not in the business and did not have the eye or the touch that experience brings. The maker told me that the genuine shirt was priced at $14 ex factory; the fake at $7. Some of the counterfeits brought into the U.S. today are of high quality and priced to sell fast. The problem is bigger than ever before. The potential counterfeit market is now China, not merely Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea and the foreign tourists who visited those tiny states.
Perhaps there is, other than price, little difference in the well-made counterfeit product. Some name brand contract factories in China -- I will not specify what brand or product -- produce extra for their own account for sale to the domestic market, even in the department stores. China does not present, if I may suggest, a marketing challenge for Lauren -- everyone knows Polo by now -- but a management challenge, specifically of its intellectual property. Daunting, in the face of weak IP enforcement and the ubiquity of excellent forgeries. The company must be well aware of this. Their strategy is worth watching as it plays out over the next few years.
Posted by Richard at 1:46 PM | Comments (0)August 24, 2009
Federal Court Enforces Chinese Judgment Against American Company
The Central District of California has held that a money judgment of $6.5 million against Robinson Helicopters issued by a Chinese court is enforceable under California's Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act. (UFMJRA) Download the decision here.
What makes this case significant? The lack of treaty obligations regarding the recognition of judgments between China and the United States and the valueless nature of an American judgment in the Chinese legal system. One expects this decision to be of great interest to Chinese plaintiffs with Chinese judgments against American corporate defendants, especially those located in the state of California. Other states that have enacted the UFMJRA, including New York, may also be within consideration..
The decision appears, on brief review, to be specific to a curious set of facts with a lengthy history, intensively reviewed. Nonetheless, one might compare to the attempt to enforce an American judgment against a Chinese defendant in a Chinese court. Don Clarke at Harvard wrote about this very subject in 2004, the abstract of which reads:
Whether the judgments of United States courts can and will be enforced in China is a question that will be increasingly asked as economic ties grow between the two countries. At present, at least, the answer is straightforward: U.S. judgments will not be enforced. Chinese law requires the existence of a treaty or de facto reciprocity in order to enforce a foreign judgment; neither exists between the United States and China. Research reveals specific cases in which enforcement was refused and no cases in which enforcement was granted. Thus, the best alternative for litigants seeking the assistance of Chinese courts is to obtain an arbitration award in a New York Convention member country - China is a member itself - or to litigate in Chinese courts.
The imbalance between the ability of Chinese judgment holders in America and American judgment holders in China is very disturbing, and should become the target of lawmakers. I must confess to less than adequate knowledge of American lawmaking activity regarding reciprocity of judgments between China and the United States and invite those more knowledgeable to contribute their comments below.
[This lengthy, but worthwhile comment from Graeme Johnson of Herbert Smith in Shanghai follows. Click this link to read it. Thereafter follows a comment from Randall Peerenboom of Zhonglun. Even more comments may be found directly below.]
Continue reading "Federal Court Enforces Chinese Judgment Against American Company"
Posted by Richard at 1:12 PM | Comments (3)August 19, 2009
Guest Post: Vivienne Bath on Stern Hu, Rio Tinto and China
[Editor's Note: Steel is a big deal in China. The World Steel Association has noted:
China became the first country ever to produce more than 500 mmt in one year. China’s crude steel production in 2008 reached 502 mmt, an increase of 2.6% on 2007. Production volume in China has more than doubled within five years, from 222 mmt in 2002. China’s share of world steel production continued to grow in 2008 producing 38% of world total crude steel.
The interconnection of high-ranking Party officials, their extended families and the steel mills (or any national quasi-state-owned Chinese enterprise, for that matter) is well-known.
Steel cannot be made without ore. China's own supply of ore is insufficient to feed its own production. Hence, China's frenetic global search for supply. After lengthy negotiations between the Chinese steel mills and Rio Tinto, the Australian mining company, failed, the Chinese government announced the arrest of four Rio Tinto employees, all of Chinese ancestry one of whom an Australian citizen born in China. These people were charged with espionage. (China-born citizens of other countries are still considered sons and daughters of China and are far more likely to be game for detention than whites.)
Shortly thereafter, after much high-level rancor between the Chinese and Australian governments, China made use of the steam valve to let off some international pressure:
Chinese authorities have backed down from accusing four Rio Tinto executives of espionage but restated the charges yesterday to include stealing commercial secrets and bribery. Official news agencies said that investigators had discovered that the four employees of the Anglo-Australian mining group had obtained commercial secrets about China’s steel and iron industries through “improper means and were involved in bribery”. Rio Tinto said that its employees were innocent and that it would fight any charges.
I would take issue with the assertion that China was in any way backing down.
The case has generated a great deal of discussion among attorneys involved with China. The following post I found especially interesting and worthwhile reading. Today's post has been graciously provided by Vivienne Bath, Senior Lecturer and Director of the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law, University of Sydney. Ms. Bath writes that the opinions expressed are entirely her own and do not represent the views of Sydney University.]
Comments on the Stern Hu/Rio Tinto Case
The case of Stern Hu and his colleagues continues to present a number of difficult issues. The first is that when Stern Hu and his colleagues were arrested, the allegation seemed to be that they were being investigated for theft of state secrets – an offence which is not clearly defined and is potentially very far-reaching – even though the information in question appeared to be commercial information of state-owned enterprises. Given that the Chinese Ambassador to Australia spent considerable time making speeches when the Chinalco-Rio Tinto deal was under consideration saying that state-owned does not mean state run and the primary aim of enterprises like Chinalco is to make money, the state secrets allegation appeared to confirm much of what the Australian Opposition and the Australian press had been saying about the proposed investment. If the original allegation had been commercial bribery and infringement on business secrets, there would undoubtedly have been a discussion on why Rio’s employees were targeted, but nothing like the fuss that the state secrets allegation created.
It should be noted that most prosecutions for bribery in China concentrate on the officials or executives who are bribed rather than the companies or people who did the bribing. Most cases involving the “bribers” have been brought by the US authorities (although Australia has its own version of FCPA, no prosecutions have ever been brought under the legislation).
It is also not clear why it is only the employees have been targeted if the allegation is commercial bribery. Why not Rio itself? If bribes were paid, where did the money come from and for whose benefit were they paid?
Another question is whether the fact that the employees are all either Chinese or, in Stern Hu’s case, formerly Chinese makes a difference to their position. James Peng, the Australian who was tried and put in goal for 6 years in China over what appeared to be primarily a commercial dispute, was also formerly a Chinese national. Chinese nationals (and former nationals) do tend to have much better access to sources in China and to be able to work with their Chinese contacts in a way that non-Chinese Australians are generally not able to do, but that does not necessarily mean that they are more inclined to act dishonestly. It does seem, however, that they are more exposed.
The last point is the motivation for the charges and the question of what message, if any, is being sent – and to whom. It appears that the Stern Hu case is probably related to the iron ore negotiations, particularly since, according to reports, various executives in Chinese steel companies have also been detained. It comes at the same time as other significant developments in the generally friendly Australia-China relationship, however.
On the one hand, stresses in the Australia-China relationship include the failure of the Chinalco-Rio deal, which was due to the Rio shareholders rather than the Australian government. The Australian government (perhaps fortunately for it) was never required to make a ruling, although this may not be believed in China, where the role of foreign governments in business is often over-estimated. In addition, from the Australian point of view, the relationship has not been at all assisted by the efforts of the Chinese Embassy and the Consulate to try to induce the government to refuse a visa to Radiya Kadeer (who actually has close relatives in Australia and has made several visits in the past) and on the Melbourne Film Festival and the National Press Club not to show a documentary about her. On the other hand, an announcement has just been made of a 20 year LNG gas purchase contract between PetroChina (which is, of course, also state-owned) and Exxon for the purchase of gas from the Gorgon field off Western Australia – reportedly the largest trade deal ever signed involving Australia. If the message in the case of Stern Hu and his colleagues is to the Australian government, therefore, it is completely unclear what it is. If it is directed at Rio Tinto and the Chinese steel companies, the ramifications have been considerably broader than intended.
Posted by Richard at 1:32 PM | Comments (0)August 17, 2009
Another Large Drop in Foreign Direct Investment in China
Not surprisingly, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced today that
Investment declined 35.7 percent from a year earlier to $5.36 billion, the Commerce Ministry said at a briefing in Beijing today. That compared with a 6.76 percent drop in June.
Creatively spinning this data -- which, as with most Chinese statistics, likely represent an optimistic representation -- Commerce Ministry spokesman and advance man for the investment roadshow, Yao Jian, said:
“China’s FDI is still healthy compared to the global slump in investments...We can say that China is one of the most attractive places for investments.”Posted by Richard at 12:53 PM | Comments (0)
August 12, 2009
WTO Rules Against China -- Limits Book and Media Imports
A World Trade Organization panel ruled on Wednesday that China had violated its international free trade rules by limiting imports of books and movies,
WTO Findings and Conclusions here. (Beware: although written in what appears to be English, it is generally impervious to understanding by those with graduate school education. You may need to hire a specialist.)
UPDATE: China to appeal.
Posted by Richard at 6:45 PM | Comments (0)August 10, 2009
Guangzhou "Chocolate City" -- African Population Stages Demonstration, Large PSB Presence
A spontaneous demonstration in Guangzhou the likes of which have not been seen in China for perhaps 75 years: all foreigners. But this time, a twist: they are all black.
Trapped in a police raid on illegal immigrants that afternoon, Okoro chose to leap from the second floor of a shopping mall rather than be arrested.
He landed on his head.
Now, as he lay unconscious on the station's doorstep, angry protestors fanned out into the street – blocking traffic, ripping up plants, waving tree limbs and denouncing the police.
August 7, 2009
Asiabizblog -- Amazing Number of Backlinks
I don't usually toot my own horn, but I recently discovered that 49,080 high quality backlinks reference this website. This makes this weblog, IMHO, one of the best-known dealing with the topic of Chinese business and law.
Posted by Richard at 3:40 PM | Comments (0)August 6, 2009
Martin Hutchinson at Asia Times on the Meltdown-ability of the Chinese Economy
Martin Hutchinson's piece on the Chinese economy bubble is worth your time:
Savers are not permitted to take money out of China, and their huge savings prop up an overvalued stock market and a bond market that is comparable in size to the freely flowing international bond market. Private sector companies are either youthful fly-by-night operations or dubiously privatized state behemoths. Prices are still largely administered, and investment flows mostly to the politically connected rather than to the economically attractive. Education is relatively poor outside the main population centers, and land ownership is still restricted.
China is thus much more like pre-1941 Japan than post-1950 Japan and its economic inefficiencies are correspondingly greater. Because of those economic inefficiencies, the chances remain high of a meltdown far before China has achieved Western living standards.Posted by Richard at 4:02 PM | Comments (0)
August 5, 2009
Australia: Bushels of Fake Apple iPhones from China
Counterfeit sellers were asking for up to $400 for the fake units on the street, to take a margin of nearly $345 on the $55 wholesale price quoted by illegal importers.One seller said he sourced his supply from an employee within Customs. The seller, who refused to supply a name, claimed that the employee used his position to circumvent Customs' usual vetting procedures to import the contraband in shipments of 5000 and 10,000 each.
He said his supplier acquired the phones in China at a cost of $18.50 per unit.
Here.
Posted by Richard at 3:34 PM | Comments (0)August 4, 2009
Tata Says to Its Employees, "Sue Me in India" -- Court Says Tough Toenails
As reported, this presents itself as a very curious case.
Foreigners working in the United States who claim they were cheated out of their tax refunds have won the right to have their employment dispute heard in American courts, defeating efforts by India's largest conglomerate to force arbitration overseas.
Why would Tata demand its US-based foreign workers 1) sign powers of attorney to allow the company to file their US income taxes for them and 2) sign over their federal and state refunds checks to the company? And then attempt to force the dispute into arbitration IN INDIA?
I know what it sounds like to me.
You will find many of the comments here to be enlightening.
Here's the opinion, courtesy of Atty. Brian Pedigo of Irvine, California.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Gopi VEDACHALAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Kangana Beri,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
TATA AMERICA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;
Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., an Indian corporation; Tata Sons, Ltd., an Indian corporation,
Defendants-Appellants.
Gopi Vedachalam, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Kangana Beri, Plaintiffs-
Appellees,
v.
Tata America International Corporation; Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., an Indian corporation; Tata
Sons, Ltd., an Indian corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 07-15504, 08-15521.
Argued and Submitted March 11, 2009.
Filed July 30, 2009.
Kelly M. Dermody, Esquire, Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, James Michael Finberg, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Steven M. Tindall, Esquire,
Rukin, Hyland, Doria & Dufrane, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Jon G. Daryanani, Michelle La Mar, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kevin J. Smith, Kelley
Drye & Warren LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants- Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker,
Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00963-VRW. Before THOMAS and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ FN*, District Judge. FN* The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
MEMORANDUM FN**
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
*1 The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not repeat them here, except as is necessary to explain our decision. Plaintiffs-appellees, Gopi Vedachalam and Kangana Beri, are Indian citizens who were employees of defendants-appellants Tata America International Corporation, et al., an Indian corporation and its affiliates (collectively, “TCS”). Vedachalam and Beri brought suit against the defendants for claims relating to their employment in California, including breach of contract and various violations of the California Labor Code. The defendants appeal the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“the Convention”) and its ruling that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate the disputes at issue. We affirm.
The district court did not err in finding that the Service Agreements Vedachalam and Beri signed did
not constitute valid agreements to arbitrate the claims alleged in their suit against TCS. The Service
Agreement protects TCS from investing training resources in an employee, only to have that employee
leave; it relates to a training period and related right to exclusive employment in exchange for
training. By its own terms, the Service Agreement's arbitration provision is related only to claims
arising out of a breach of that agreement, which would be claims concerning an employee's failure
to work for TCS for the requisite period, or a surety's failure to pay the penalty. Though under
the Convention we must construe arbitration agreements liberally, and with a predisposition to enforce
them, Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 937 F.2d 469, 478-79 (9th Cir.1991), the Service
Agreement arbitration provision does not encompass claims arising from the plaintiffs' employment
in California. Additionally, the other agreements' remedial provisions-which provide different remedies
for different breaches, including the right of TCS to sue its employees-are inconsistent with interpreting
the arbitration provision in the Service Agreement to cover all disputes arising out of the plaintiffs' employment with TCS.
The 2000 letter, which only Vedachalam signed, authorizes two named individuals to be sole arbitrators
“[i]n the context of Tata Consultancy Services deputing [him] abroad and any disputes
arising thereof, ... to hear and resolve the said disputes. ”However, it is not clear that the letter is
even an agreement to arbitrate, rather than a designation of arbitrators for the Service Agreement. In
any event, the letter is not an enforceable arbitration agreement because it lacked consideration by
requiring only Vedachalam, and not TCS, to arbitrate. TCS's argument that a mutual agreement to arbitrate should be inferred is unavailing because the letter contains no mutual commitment to arbitrate
and the other agreements indicate that TCS explicitly reserved the right to litigate in U.S. courts and
collect liquidated damages for disputes arising from employee breaches. In light of TCS's having explicitly
reserved its right to litigate, we will not infer a reciprocal agreement to arbitrate all disputes arising
in the context of Vedachalam's deputation. *2 TCS's argument that its promise of continued
employment constitutes adequate consideration is similarly unconvincing. First, the letter does not
contain any promise of continued employment. Thus, even if such a promise could constitute consideration, it is absent here. Second, while a promise of continued employment may constitute consideration sufficient to support an at-will employee's promise to submit claims to arbitration, see, e.g., Demasse v. ITT Corp., 111 F.3d 730, 734-35 (9th Cir.1997), Vedachalam was not an at-will employee. Accordingly, a promise of continued employment does not constitute sufficient consideration.
AFFIRMED.
C.A.9 (Cal.),2009.
Vedachalam v. Tata America Intern. Corp.
Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2353270 (C.A.9 (Cal.))
August 1, 2009
More African Complaints About Chinese Business Practices
Following our 88 Queensway article comes this:
At several Chinese-run projects in Windhoek, workers were not wearing safety helmets. The Namibian workers said they must pay for their own safety equipment — for example, $3.65 for a helmet, $1.20 for gloves and $9.75 for overalls. “It’s not a nice place,” said another worker.
Recurring problems among Chinese employers in Africa included low wages, unpaid overtime and a lack of safety equipment such as helmets and gloves. At a construction company in Malawi, workers had to mix cement with their bare hands, the report states. In Ghana, construction workers worked nine to 12 hours a day, seven days a week, according to the report...
Many thanks to Miss Johnson from London for the link.
Posted by Richard at 12:23 AM | Comments (0)July 30, 2009
Tianjin Falls to the Japanese -- July 1937
In July 1937, Tianjin (天津－Tietsin) and Beijing (北京） fell to the Japanese. More on the event here, here and, for videos, here. Videos are in Japanese with Chinese subtitles.
Posted by Richard at 8:14 PM | Comments (0)
July 27, 2009
Tonghua Iron & Steel Workers Kill Exec in Protest Over Layoffs
More than a thousand steel workers in China's northeast staged an at-times violent protest against the planned takeover of their state-run employer and a group of them killed a top executive at the private company that was to acquire it, Chinese state-run media reported.
The article is here.
Posted by Richard at 12:49 PM | Comments (0)July 23, 2009
Video from Hong Kong of Typhoon Molave as Eyewall Passes
This video of the southern eyewall was shot by James Reynolds in Taipo, courtesy of www.TornadoVideos.net.
Posted by Richard at 9:45 PM
| Comments (0)
July 22, 2009
China Watches the Solar Eclipse
Stunning, but, if this is any indication, how many lost vision in China looking at it through sunglasses?
Posted by Richard at 6:31 PM | Comments (0)July 20, 2009
The 88 Queensway Group -- A Nexus Between Chinese State Security Organs and Private Overseas Investment?
This fascinating report on the "88 Queensway Group" by the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission details the "private" overseas investment projects of Chinese state-owned entities with substantial connection to the Public Security Bureau and Chinese intelligence.
With text like this, I found it a great read for any China watcher:
Lo Fong Hung appears to serve as the public face of the 88 Queensway Group, making several public appearances on behalf of companies associated with the consortium.2 Although there is little information publicly available about Lo’s personal or professional background prior to 2003 (when New Bright was incorporated), she is listed currently as the director of no fewer than thirty-four companies incorporated in Hong Kong, most of which are listed at the 88 Queensway address. Lo’s husband, Mr. Wang Xiangfei, is a former director of China Everbright Group and currently is a nonexecutive director of China International Trust and Investment Company (CITIC), both state-owned companies in the PRC. China Everbright has been identified previously as a company affiliated with Chinese military intelligence, to include a role as a nominal employer for overseas agents operating under cover. CITIC is a huge, Chinese state-owned conglomerate, incorporating forty-four subsidiaries involved with industries as varied as financial services, telecommunications, construction, manufacturing, mining, property development, and media. Wang Xiangfei and Lo Fong Hung both have connections to China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation, also known as Sinopec, and are listed as officers of Sinopec subsidiaries.6 While Wang Xiangfei holds official leadership positions in at least six of the companies owned by the 88 Queensway Group, it is unclear exactly how much control or leadership he exerts within the Group.
If that fails to pique your interest, how about this?
On company filings, Wu lists his residential address as “No. 14 Dong Chang An Street, Beijing, China.” This address is the headquarters for the Ministry of Public Safety (MPS), a domestic security service of the Chinese government. Also located in this compound is a reception office for the Ministry of State Security (MSS), the primary state agency responsible for foreign intelligence activities.Posted by Richard at 8:09 PM | Comments (0)
Chinese Quarantine of Foreigners For Suspected Swine Flu Continues
China has quarantined 107 British students for swine flu precautions. Quarantine of foreigners for suspected swine flu has reached surprising proportions.
U.S. Embassy Spokeswoman Susan Stevenson said the embassy didn't have a total number of Americans quarantined in China, but said they were "aware of several cases at the moment." Ms. Stevenson said about 1,800 Americans had been quarantined in China since the swine-flu measures began in early May; 200 people tested positive for swine flu.
One wonders the extent of quarantine of Chinese citizens.
Posted by Richard at 1:19 PM | Comments (0)July 17, 2009
Not China: For Attorneys Whose Clients Want Your Services, But Don't Wish to Pay
How many attorneys have heard something like this from clients?
July 10, 2009
Guest Post: Lin Bai on China’s Generation Y Consumers
[Editor's Note: Much has been made of China's potential for a consumer, rather than export, driven economy. The potential has caused marketers to salivate in expectancy for centuries. However, estimates of 40 to 50 million Chinese consumers with sufficient disposable income equate China to roughly the size of the Italian market. But has the equation finally begun to change with the latest generation of Chinese to enter the workforce?
Today's post has been graciously contributed by Lin Bai, who, as a professional analyst of trends, writes from the perspective of that new generation of Chinese. Ms. Bai, born and raised in China, is a New Ventures Analyst for Metan Development Group. Prior to that, she was with Trimtabs Investment Research and International Data Corporation. Ms. Bai was educated at the University of San Francisco and the University of London.]
The Gold Mine: China’s “Post-80s” Generation of Consumers
As one of China’s post-80s generation (aka Generation Y), I still remember my glory days in high school. A pair of Nike Michael Jordan sneakers, a Motorola pager, or a Giant-brand mountain bike – and you were the most popular kid in your class. In Mainland China, the post-80s generation refers to those born after 1980 and before 1990. According to China’s census yearbooks, 200 million children were born during this time period. This generation is gradually becoming one of the most lucrative segments ever coveted by marketers, the so-called China “gold mine”.
Our “post-80s” generation has more disposable income and a greater appetite for consumption, partly driven by international ties. We are addicted to the Internet and video games and constitute the majority of online shoppers. We are more receptive to new things, follow latest fashion and trends, and are quickly becoming the face of China.
As a result of China’s one–child policy, this generation is cursed with the “me” factor. With no siblings to compete with, we are considered the “little emperors and the little princesses” of the family. And unlike children in the US or in the other countries, this generation is fully financially supported by their parents well into their twenties or, at the very least, until they graduate from college (many of them still rely on their parents even after they get a job). In fact, according to the China Research Center on Aging, a surprising 30% of working age employees in China are supported by their parents.
The post-80s generation has a markedly different behavior in consuming than their parents. This generation believes that money is something to be made and not saved. We are confident that we can (and will) make big “bucks” in the future - especially after an intensive education starting at primary school. We also believe if we cannot afford a high-rise apartment or a Mercedes Benz with our current salary, why not spend and pretend that we can. Thus, an introduction to the so-called “Moonlight Group” (people who live paycheck to paycheck, spending it all by month’s end). We also focus less on a product’s usefulness than on its appeal. Purchases are heavily based on appearance, popularity, and what I like to refer to as the “flash” factor—how much attention they would get from the others if they own it.
In the next few years, the post-80s generation will constitute (as some of them already do) most of China’s entire middle-class. Not only are we better educated and start earlier at making substantial money than previous generations, we are doing this across all industries including sports, entertainment, IT and business. Piano prodigy Lang Lang, world champion hurdler Liu Xiang, NBA basketball players Yao Ming and Yi Jianlian are some of this generation’s celebrities – who are also representatives of this new generation of China’s “gold mine”. In fact, in Forbes’ 2009 annual “Top 10 Chinese Celebrities List”, 50% of those listed belong to the post-80s generation.
This generation’s product consumption was a key factor in China's retail growth in 2008 - representing 20% of all spending (China Market Research Group).
As a part of this lucrative member of this post-80s generation, I’m actually quite excited to see what the future holds in China. I can proudly boast that I’m making history and changing China as an economic force. Whether it’s for the better (or for the worse), I’m a proud part of that change. So, the next time you decide you want to tap into the largest group of consumers in the world – think of this “spoiled, egotistical, self-centered, and rebellious” crowd. Think China and join the gold rush!
Posted by Richard at 3:42 PM | Comments (0)July 6, 2009
North Korea TV Shows First Beer Ad
The first person to send me a bottle (can't be empty) of this brew wins this blog's Annual Champion Reader Award!
Stumble It!
