An advertiser’s views on China

A group of us are doing a project for Profero, one of the world’s foremost digital agencies. We met with the UK management today, and afterwards went out for a drink with the MD Nick Blunden (who blogs here). Profero has a significant Chinese presence, and we all got discussing China (du-uh)!

Nick’s comments about the single grandchild of 4 grandparents got me thinking about the Fortune article from 2-3 years ago (Sorry can’t find the link after a lot of attempts). This social aspect of revolutionary change is sometimes forgotten amidst the 1-billion hype. First, it clearly shows how delays can be loooooong. The policy of 1-child was encouraged/implemented in 1960s!  Second, relative disposable income per child is huuuuge, especially in the dual-income families. Thirdly, and most importantly, this is leading to children growing up in a certain way: behaviorally (get what they want, thus stubborn) and their macro-view (China can only grow fast). Social implications of what I would call this waiting to explode volcano are anyone’s guess. I am not underestimating the strength of the Chinese to re-align; however, economic growth pangs always come with social ones – but these are real unique.

How does this lead to advertising – well such children and youth of China are much more digital than in developed nations (as a percentage); they get all the gadgets from their families and have a lot of spare time to spend on it. All of this started from the discussion of a Internet-dance game (adapted from the arcade step-to-dance game) in China that has 36 million registered users and almost 34-million of those are active!! Talk about an available market for advertising baby and move over Second Life!

I must go to China soon, my dad also keeps insisting

 

Steve Jobs & Bill Gates together and an update on London’s Carbon footprints

Steve and Bill came together after a long time at the D5 conference – text and video all available here.

100’s of bloggers have probably already analysed this for content: let me analyze it for style and personality.

- Steve Jobs was so much more confident of what he was saying. This is not to say Bill Gates wasn’t confident; just a relative measure.   His concise answers were not at all beating around the bush

-  However, imho Bill Gates took to humor/wit/light-heartedness more easily; though in some bits of the video it might seem otherwise.

- It was quite incredible that they never spoke on top of each other! Good prep or what

- The interviewers, oh my god Walt was so speaking on top of Kara that it was making her seem like a child

Here’s another quick update on the Carbon footprint posting from a few weeks ago. Conrad, now an alumni of the school and a well-known figure in the business for social change scene in UK, had a chat with me about this. Conrad suggested that taking a city as the basis of carbon footprint is misleading and messy for various reasons (1) There are too many interdependencies between areas within a country’s legislation, way more than pointed out in the FT article (2) Cities are not accountable for their carbon footprint, countries are under Kyoto (3)  Understanding data on the basis of city can be manipulated easily and (4) Mr. Mayor of London is putting probably too much emphasis on London’s footprint at the expense of a bigger goal perhaps.

Finally, a lot of close family and friends have seen Chini Kum on my review & endorsement, and loved it as well; so go out there and enjoy it!

 

Bush, the US and all the baloney

Could there be a bigger about turn in views and policies?

“Science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it”
–  oh come on, can you cut the crap; I mean this much crap. Has Mr. Bush been living in a cave or did your scientific advisors suddenly graduate
“By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases.”          — Hahahha, nice one, oh wait, all the other nations already have it; so saying  “America and other nations” doesn’t make America sound like a leader, it sounds plain idiotic

He said the US would convene a series of multilateral meetings involving the biggest polluters – including China and India – to seek agreement on a reduction target and how to achieve it.
— aha, so just include China and India as if they are the culprits so far . Just to let you know Mr. Bush,  China and India may be big polluters now but it’s the western world that everyone (ie. 169  countries) agree contributed to today.

Tony Blair, British prime minister, described the US move as a “huge step forward”.
— Now this is what I call a waste of a line in an article!! Bush doing something and Blair treating it as the best thing ever since sliced bread – oh my, how new is that

Legacy hunting has taken a whole new scale, and George Bush has shown his ignorance and insulted the intelligence of the world-at-large once again.

You want my view: either US should listen to the French Ambassador tell the Chief Of Staff in the TV series, The West Wing “You are so used to calling yourself leaders of the free world. So…… lead”.

Or they should shut up

 

London emits 40% less CO2 per person emitting than the national average: FT

Dear old FT Magazine, as usual some very interesting articles this week.

One of them (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5b3df528-02aa-11dc-a023-000b5df10621.html) by Tim Harford discusses carbon footprints of different regions in the UK.

Read it, it’s damn interesting and very short; but here’s a summary set of statements if you dont want to click on the link to read it:

1. “London’s Mayor’s office informs me that London emits 40 per cent less carbon dioxide a person than the national average”

2. “The Office for National Statistics reports that Londoners produce much less household waste than anywhere else in the UK. From the same source I learn that London’s households are the most likely to have no cars”

3. “London, like other big, dense cities, is good for the planet. That fact seems to surprise people. After all, cities are polluted places. But we need to make a fair comparison. There are 7,600 times more people in London than in Ashton Hayes, but if you took 7,600 villages like Ashton Hayes and tried to cram all of them inside the M25 you’d have a struggle. The first step, I suppose, would be to build a few thousand skyscrapers and fill them with gardens and garden sheds.”

4. “But it is worth remembering that Londoners – like the citizens of New York, Tokyo and many other dense cities around the world – have found a way of life that combines green living with wealth and economic dynamism. It turns people into unconscious, even unwilling, environmentalists.”

Here’s my questions, if anyone wants to have a discussion on this:

1. How believable is this? Specifically, did this author take into account all form of commercial footprint of London? I mean 40% less than national average with manufacturing already dying here seems steep. I understand the population in London is many times anywhere else but still.

2. If this is truly the case, what does that say about “oh the purity of the countryside; I just want a break out there” school of thought

3. If this is truly the case, how should the whole PoA for lowering global carbon footprint be changed (if at all)?  Should the criteria for carbon emission reduction differ for cities and villages in UK?

4. If this is not the case, then is there a fundamental flaw in carbon footprint estimations being followed?

not being critical, just want to learn more on this topic