The massive size of the Chinese market is a fatal attraction for foreign capital, as every investor dreams of entering the Chinese market. Unfortunately, for many people, such as media mogul Rupert Murdoch, it remains nothing but a dream.
Not long ago, Murdoch’s company News Corp announced that it was selling a controlling stake in three Chinese television channels to China Media Capital (CMC), a private equity fund formed with government backing. Some analysts say this might be the crucial first step of the company’s withdrawal from the Chinese market, a tacit acknowledgement that the group’s efforts to expand into the Chinese media market in recent years have been in vain.
This failure comes at a cost, as the transaction price of the shares fell far below the actual value. In other words, Murdoch paid a considerable price for his misjudgment.
The mistake Murdoch made was his belief that China’s media market was a real market in which investors can invest, acquire other companies, expand their presence and earn a profit based on the rules of a market economy. Reality proved that he was wrong. He misjudged three crucial factors.
First, China’s liberalization is directed by policy concerns, which means that it is restricted. The control of freedom of expression is the Chinese government’s most fundamental concern. Total control of opinions is crucial for the continued rule of the totalitarian government. It is the untouchable lifeline on which its survival depends and this is something the Chinese regime is fully aware of.
Consequently, thought control is almost everywhere in China. In the fields of entertainment, fitness, beauty and other such sectors in which foreign investors and mass media think they can have a share, the Chinese Communist Party will not let go if it suspects that it may lose control. The so-called “anti-vulgarity campaign” recently launched in China serves as an example. Given this kind of logic, how could Beijing possibly be expected to allow foreign capital to break into its media market?
Murdoch’s company had spent a lot of time and energy on his endeavor after entering China 20 years ago, but he has now been forced to withdraw in disappointment. This is clear evidence that unless there are changes in the political environment, it will be impossible to enter the Chinese media market.
Second, even if we put aside political restrictions for now, foreign investors trying to enter the Chinese media market will encounter strong competition from local vested interests. The main founders and investors of CMC, which is buying Murdoch’s three TV channels, are all Chinese media groups with strong financial investment or cultural media background, such as Shanghai Media Group.
The media sector is very different from the infrastructure or financial sector, which can be completely dominated by capital, technology and management. As a kind of cultural industry in itself, the development of the media business is even further restricted by cultural background, wide contact networks and local conditions, and these are all aspects that make it difficult for foreign investors to compete with local media groups.
Third, many foreign investors seem to have misunderstood China’s reform and liberalization. As they saw China developing capitalist markets, they made the mistake of thinking they can judge this country using the same standards they apply to market economies. They failed to see that apart from market development, other aspects of China’s reform are still very underdeveloped.
Take policy stability for example. There is no guarantee of policy stability because the systemic foundations are missing. As a result, changes in policy direction and political atmosphere, as well as personnel adjustments, will have a significant influence on the media market, a market that is very easily affected by non-economic factors. The level of uncertainty is highly pronounced in the media market. I think this is something Murdoch and his group have experienced.
China is in great need of foreign investment — in other words, money. However, foreign investors, including investors from Hong Kong and Taiwan that have long dreamed about the Chinese media market, must understand clearly that power still outweighs money in today’s China.
This is the greatest difference between the Chinese and Western economies.
Wang Dan is a visiting assistant professor at National Tsing Hua University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS