大陸魅力不再 外企吃足苦頭
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/1/31
2014-01-27 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：黃明堂 |
經濟改革開放將近30年，中國仍是全球最具吸引力的市場。儘管中國的私人消費金額僅佔全球的8％，然而2011～2013年間，全球消費的成長有三分之二來自於中國市場。
然而，對許多跨國企業來說，在中國市場的經營卻是愈來愈困難；部份原因在於成長已經開始趨緩，但成本卻不斷墊高；優秀的年輕工作者愈來愈難找，薪資成本更是持續上漲。
過去，中國政府對某些領域的外企有嚴格的限制，包括銀行業、房仲業以及網路公司。但如今連其他領域的外企，在中國也面臨了諸多難題。多家硬體設備公司，例如思科、IBM、高通，因為史諾登事件而受到牽連；葛蘭素史克藥廠因員工賄賂案件而遭受調查；蘋果去年因為售後服務問題處理不當而被迫公開道歉；星巴克因為價格過高而受到抨擊。今年3月，中國將施行全新的消費者保護法，勢必對跨國企業產生衝擊；此外，中國當局打壓政府官員的浮濫消費，也使得專賣奢侈品的跨國企業大受影響。
除了上述原因之外，中國市場的競爭日益激烈，也讓外企吃足苦頭。中國本土企業的崛起，已開始威脅外企在中國的勢力。小米和華為已有能力製造世界級的智慧型手機，中國消費者已經沒有必要花大錢購買外國品牌的產品。網路的發達，再加上缺乏品牌忠誠度，使得中國消費者成了全球最挑剔的消費族群。
有些跨國企業選擇離開戰場。去年12月，露華濃就宣布退出中國市場；全球最大的化妝品集團萊雅也宣布，將在中國停售卡尼爾系列；美國電子零售商Best Buy、入口網站雅虎也早已退出。
即便選擇留在中國，前景也不太樂觀。IBM表示，2013年最後一季在中國的營收下滑了23％；美國速食連鎖品牌百勝集團，2013年的中國市場的同店銷售額下降16％，部份原因是雞肉供應商使用抗生素而遭到中國政府調查。
正如同奇異執行長傑佛瑞‧伊梅特所說，「中國市場非常龐大，但困難重重。其他規模同等的市場，卻沒有這麼多難題。」
對外企而言，未來該如何看待中國市場？
第一，成本的增加代表企業老闆必須從追求成長的思維，轉換為提升生產力，例如開發可替代人力的科技。此外，在運用電子商務和智慧型手機的海量資料、開發新商機方面，外企的腳步也落後中國本土企業，例如阿里巴巴和騰訊。
第二，更嚴格的管控是必要的。葛蘭素史克坦承，員公賄賂案的發生，有部份原因是中國的高階主管的行為超出總公司的掌控之外。之後總公司的主管必須確保，世界各地分公司高階主管的行為標準維持一致。
最後一點，「一個中國」的政策已不再適用。在中國經濟的規模仍小於2兆美元時，已經有不少外企在中國不同城市設立辦事處。如今中國經濟規模幾乎是當年的5倍之多，但還是有部份外企只在上海設立中國總部。但事實上，不同省分、不同都會區的消費者，對於食物、時尚、和其他領域的喜好，都不盡相同，因此必須針對不同地區採取個別的行銷或產品開發策略。
中國仍是個商機無限的市場。能有效提升生產力、強化管控、採取在地化策略的外企，仍可以在中國市場生存。但可以確定的是，黃金年代已一去不復返。（吳凱琳譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
The Economist
China loses its allure
Multinationals
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: January 27, 2014
Life is getting tougher for foreign companies. Those that want to stay
will have to adjust.
ACCORDING to the late Roberto Goizueta, a former boss of The Coca-Cola
Company, April 15th 1981 was "one of the most important days…in the
history of the world." That date marked the opening of the first Coke
bottling plant to be built in China since the Communist revolution.
The claim was over the top, but not absurd. Mao Zedong's disastrous
policies had left the economy in tatters. The height of popular aspiration was
the "four things that go round": bicycles, sewing machines, fans and
watches. The welcome that Deng Xiaoping, China's then leader, gave to foreign
firms was part of a series of changes that turned China into one of the biggest
and fastest-growing markets in the world.
For the past three decades, multinationals have poured in. After the
financial crisis, many companies looked to China for salvation. Now it looks as
though the gold rush may be over.
More pain, less gain
In some ways, China's market is still the world's most enticing.
Although it accounts for only around 8% of private consumption in the world, it
contributed more than any other country to the growth of consumption in
2011-13. Firms like GM and Apple have made fat profits there.
But for many foreign companies, things are getting harder. That is
partly because growth is flagging (see article), while costs are rising.
Talented young workers are getting harder to find, and pay is soaring.
China's government has always made life difficult for firms in some
sectors—it has restricted market access for foreign banks and brokerage houses
and blocked internet firms, including Facebook and Twitter—but the tough
treatment seems to be spreading. Hardware firms such as Cisco, IBM and Qualcomm
are facing a post-Snowden backlash; GlaxoSmithKline, a drugmaker, is ensnared
in a corruption probe; Apple was forced into a humiliating apology last year
for offering inadequate warranties; and Starbucks has been accused by state
media of price-gouging. A sweeping consumer-protection law will come into force
in March, possibly providing a fresh line of attack on multinationals. And the
government's crackdown on extravagant spending by officials is hitting the
foreign firms that peddle luxuries (see article).
Competition is heating up. China was already the world's fiercest
battleground for global brands but local firms, long laggards in quality, are
joining the fray. Many now have overseas experience, and some are developing
inventive products. Xiaomi and Huawei have come up with world-class
smartphones, and Sany's excellent diggers are taking on costlier ones made by
Hitachi and Caterpillar. Consumers will no longer pay a hefty premium just
because a brand is foreign. Their internet savvy and lack of brand loyalty
makes them the world's most demanding customers (see article).
Some companies are leaving. Revlon said in December that it was pulling
out altogether. L'Oréal, the world's largest cosmetics firm, said soon
afterwards that it would stop selling one of its main brands, Garnier. Best
Buy, an American electronics retailer, and Media Markt, a German rival, have
already left, as has Yahoo, an internet giant. Tesco, a British food retailer,
last year gave up trying to go it alone, and entered a joint venture with a
state-owned firm.
Some of those who are staying are struggling. IBM this week said that
revenues in China fell by 23% during the last quarter of 2013. Rémy Cointreau,
a French drinks group, reported that sales of its Rémy Martin cognac fell by more
than 30% during the first three quarters of last year because of a plunge in
China. Yum Brands, an American fast-food firm, said in September last year that
same-store sales in China had fallen by 16% in the year to date. Its problems
were partly the result of a government investigation into alleged illegal
antibiotic use by its chicken suppliers.
Investors no longer celebrate firms with big investments in China. Our
Sinodependency Index weights American multinationals by their China revenues.
Sino-dependent firms used to outperform their peers, but in the past two years
their share prices have done worse than others'.
As Jeffrey Immelt, the boss of GE, puts it, "China is big, but it
is hard…[other] places are equally big, but they are not quite as hard."
Companies that want to stay in China will have to put in even more effort. Many
will have to change strategy.
One China is over
First, rising costs mean that bosses must shift from going for growth
to enhancing productivity. This sounds obvious, but in China the mentality has
long been "just throw more men at the problem". One way to get a grip
on costs is to invest in labour-substituting technology, not only in
manufacturing but also in services. Also, multinationals are falling behind
local firms like Alibaba and Tencent in exploiting a surge of big data coming
from e-commerce and smartphones.
Second, tighter control is another must. GSK's bosses in London
admitted that its problems in China were partly the result of executives acting
"outside of our processes and control". Managers in headquarters must
ensure that executives' behaviour and safety standards are as high as anywhere
else in the world. Chinese consumers are even more active on social media than
those in the West, so any scandal is instantly broadcast nationally.
Lastly, a One China policy no longer makes sense. Most firms set up
their local offices when China's economy was smaller than $2 trillion. Although
it will soon be five times that size, many still try to run their operations
from Shanghai. That makes little sense when tastes in food, fashion and much
else vary between provinces and mega-cities that have populations as big as
European countries. Some 400m Chinese do not speak Mandarin. So even as CEOs
need to keep a closer eye on standards and behaviour, they should localise
marketing and perhaps product development.
China is still a rich prize. Firms that can boost productivity, improve
governance and respond to local tastes can still prosper. But the golden years
are over.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014
沒有留言:
張貼留言