China is one of the world’s oldest civilizations, which managed to survive for over 6000 years. Historically speaking, China has produced many crucially important products, such as: paper, gun powder, the printing press, and the compass. These were pivotal instruments that helped to shape today’s world. Before making my point, I would also like to mention the Great Wall of China, the construction of which was begun in the 5th C. BC. It was perhaps the greatest architectural endeavor of its time. Its purpose was to isolate a sophisticated and wealthy empire from the attacks of “barbaric Mongols,” who sacked villages’ wheat supplies. In a way, the Great Wall more than fulfilled its destiny; it shielded an ancient society from the rest of the world. As a result, China developed certain cultural characteristics in time, that make it impenetrable to the many multinational corporations, gushing to sell their products in its dynamic markets.
A lot has changed over the centuries; for both China, and the rest of the world. For hundreds of foreign companies today, China is synonymous with big business, cheap labor, and unfortunately, a plight of intellectual property infringements, that get lost in translation. The punishments for these infringements have been, at best, poorly sanctioned by the Chinese government. Perhaps it’s because they feel they have already contributed more than their share of originality (with the above mentioned discoveries), or that they can hide behind a wall (this time entirely bureaucratic), but so far Chinese marketing consists of making minor changes –if any at all– to existing brands’ tangibles (logos, slogans, and even names), and passing them of as their own. Nike and Starbucks are two of many “plagiarized” brands, with regard to whose copyrights, Chinese companies have been entirely indifferent.
A lot has changed over the centuries; for both China, and the rest of the world. For hundreds of foreign companies today, China is synonymous with big business, cheap labor, and unfortunately, a plight of intellectual property infringements, that get lost in translation. The punishments for these infringements have been, at best, poorly sanctioned by the Chinese government. Perhaps it’s because they feel they have already contributed more than their share of originality (with the above mentioned discoveries), or that they can hide behind a wall (this time entirely bureaucratic), but so far Chinese marketing consists of making minor changes –if any at all– to existing brands’ tangibles (logos, slogans, and even names), and passing them of as their own. Nike and Starbucks are two of many “plagiarized” brands, with regard to whose copyrights, Chinese companies have been entirely indifferent.
In April 12th’s New York Times, there was an article about the Chinese sporting goods brand, Li-Ning, written by business columnist Joe Nocera. Founded by an ex-Olympic gymnast, Li-Ning’s sneakers are of high quality, but that’s not the problem. According to the article, the brand’s logo, slogan, and even design are suspiciously similar to those of Nike and Adidas. The logo is a variation of Nike’s trademark swooshes, and its English slogan “everything is possible” was created by putting a minor spin on the Adidas slogan: “Nothing is Impossible!” Li-Ning managed to get famous international personalities such as Shaquille O’Neal –who is poised in a lay-up on the logo of its basketball shoes – to endorse its brand image. However, this component too, reeks of Nike’s Air Jordan logo. Li-Ning sneakers cost about 20% less than Nike’s and considering Nike charges a near 200% mark-up on its products, I find myself in support of Li-Ning. However, the company is only able to keep its prices low because of the money it saved by copying existing brand tangibles instead on developing their own.
Another major copyright infringement –and one that has legally been resolved– involved the American coffee retailer Starbucks vs. its Chinese counterpart Xingbake. Starbuck sued Xingbake –Xing means star in Mandarin and Ba-ke is the phonetic equivalent of buck – for trademark infringement. The Chinese national Xingbake was found guilty of copying the starbucks name and logo and was fined a sum of $63000[1]. Although, the amount is insignificant in proportion to both enterprises’ revenues, it was an important victory on behalf of all foreign companies operating in China. It also indicates that the Chinese government is finally beginning to take intellectual property rights seriously.Chinese companies are certainly eager to make their way into foreign markets, but as far as I am concerned, they are yet to be perceived as anything more than producers of cheap disposable goods, and various crafty knock-offs. For companies like Li-Ning –only 1% of whose $700 million annual revenue is derived form international sales[2] – the only way to success goes through effective branding. And so far they been going about it the wrong way.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder