Public Radio International’s (PRI) “The World” recently produced an excellent overview of the Chinese ambition to enhance its soft power capabilities:

Regrettably, in my opinion, the Chinese are approaching their media initiatives in much the same way they are other sectors of the economy.  When the country’s leading computer manufacturer wanted international legitimacy and did not know how to build its brand overseas, Lenovo went out and bought it through the acquisition of IBM’s Thinkpad mobile computing division.  Similarly for Geely’s recent acquisition of Volvo and so on.  While this strategy can work for cars, computers and most other manufactured products, ideas are different — and media is nothing more than the electronic transmission of ideas.  Whereas the underlying ownership of a computer company, be it from China, Taiwan, Japan or South Korea matters less so long as the device meets the consumer’s expectations, with media that underlying ownership can often define the customer’s perception of the content’s integrity.  The fact that politically conservative Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News is relevant just as Al Jazeera struggles for acceptance with its English-language service due to its corporate parenting in the Persian Gulf.  Simply put, ownership matters.  Therefore, the Chinese acquiring Western media brands will not bring it the validation and acceptance Beijing so dearly wants.  So what will?

Here are three ideas Chinese media leaders should consider:

Don’t Imitate the West’s Media Models, Build Your Own

Chinese leaders have often said they want to create their own versions of CNN and Al Jazeera to offset the perceived biases in international coverage of China.  Each time the Chinese use these loaded terms like “CNN” and “Al Jazeera” it sets an expectation in outsiders’ minds that they want to create a free, open media channel comparable to what is available in the West. As evidenced in the “The World” radio segment above, this is NOT the Chinese objective.  Therefore it is critical that the Chinese not define their media ambitions in distinctly Western terms and instead they should create their own.  There is no better example than the Fox News Channel.  When FNC launched in 1996, Rupert Murdoch did not say he was creating the next CNN.  Instead, he boasted how he developed an entirely different kind of news channel.  Today, FNC dominates in the ratings and stands apart from its cable news rivals in the United States.  China’s media channels, too, should stand apart from comparable international outlets rather than offer a poor imitation.

Get engaged, with or without your own TV network

Chinese political and corporate leaders are instinctively reserved about engaging the international media.  I experienced this firsthand as a young Beijing-based foreign correspondent for the Associated Press in the mid-90s.  Back then, in the pre-internet era, “no comment” was sufficient to make journalists like myself go away.  Today, when companies and governments do not engage in the broader debate, it creates a vacuum that critics and others in the blogosphere, Twitterverse and elsewhere are more than eager to fill with their own narrative.  Take for example the United States government’s experience with Al Jazeera and other Arabic language satellite TV networks.  For many years after September 11th, Washington banned its diplomats from appearing on networks it deemed “unfriendly” to the United States.  So whenever a critic of the United States appeared on Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya’s talk shows, there was no one there to articulate the U.S. position.  Ultimately, the White House recognized this was counterproductive and not only lifted the ban, but embarked on a bold effort to provide sophisticated media training to its Arabic-speaking diplomats so to enhance their on air presentation skills.  Today, American policy is clearly articulated and vigorously defended on networks across the Middle East.

Transparency will ultimately serve Beijing’s long term interests far more effectively than hiding behind the veil of “no comment.”  No one better demonstrates than Liu Guijin, China’s top diplomat for African policy who regularly engages the international media.  His strong command of English and fearlessness to challenge embedded negative narratives about China’s engagement with Africa serves as an excellent example for how Chinese officials at various levels can be effective at communicating Beijing’s positions.

Credibility Must be Earned, So Hire the Right People to do the Job

To date, the Chinese government has launched no less than three english language TV networks: 1) CCTV9, 2) Blue Ocean Network and 3) the new CNC.  They have done an amazing job securing distribution around the world on cable and satellite systems.  So what’s the problem?  No one watches! In a world where viewers have overwhelming choice, editorial credibility and quality matter.  If the Chinese government wants a viewer in Atlanta, Georgia to turn away from any of the 400 channels available on Direct TV to tune in CCTV9, it must provide a very compelling viewing experience.  Unfortunately, CCTV9 and the other networks fail miserably in this regard because the people they have hired to produce their content are simply not up to the task.  I do not mean to be flippant or disrespectful in any way of the people who work hard at these channels but they do not meet the standards common at most other international news networks.  Typically, the people who work in China’s english language media fall in to two categories: 1) they are very green and use the opportunity to work at the China Daily or CCTV9 as a way to gain experience or 2) they are older refugees from the West who either cannot or do not want to compete in the more cut throat newsrooms in Australia, the U.S. or the U.K. among other countries.

We all know that you get what you pay for in this world and Chinese media leaders would benefit enormously from investing in experienced talent and once again follow the precedent of Al Jazeera.  When Al Jazeera English launched several years ago, the Doha-based company went to every major international news network from the BBC in London to CNN in Atlanta to CNBC Asia in Singapore and skimmed off the best talent with offers of better pay and enhanced editorial creativity.  Just as Al Jazeera English has its own anti-U.S./anti-Israel embedded negative narratives that these journalists have been able to work around, there are enough experienced journalists who would be willing to work on a Chinese product so long as they are paid at international standards and offered sufficient editorial opportunities.  The leaders of CCTV should abandon their reliance on inexperienced and out-dated talent if they want to their shows to get the airing they deserve.

David Wolff is right to be skeptical that China will ever come around to actually launching a full-scale, internationally credible news network, however they might instead get their act together to assemble a media conglomerate for their entertainment assets.  Here are three reasons why this is a really bad idea:

1) IN THIS DAY AND AGE, BIG IS NOT BETTER: Global media companies like Time Warner, Viacom and Disney are too big to maneuver in the age of the internet.  The future of media is interactive, highly flexible and predominantly online.

2) THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL WITH CARS, BANKS SO WHY NOT MEDIA?: The Chinese appear to be ripping a page from their “conglomerate playbook” where they invest massively in an industry to rapidly build marketshare and then move to compete globally.  The problem, though, is that media is different than manufacturing and financial services because the product’s success depends on the credibility behind the messenger.  Until China can free its news divisions from the grip of the Propaganda Ministry, it will have a hard time convincing the international community that its news and entertainment offers an alternative.

3) THEY ALREADY HAVE SCALE, JUST NOT ON TV: While the State Council may believe that Shanghai Media Group is the future of Chinese media, the truth is that SMG’s audience size will always lie in the shadow of China’s dynamic online media market.  Chinese online media companies like Sina, QQ.com and even Baidu are all ranked in the top 30 of the world’s largest web companies.  It’s totally understandable that China wants to have a stronger voice in the international media space, the problem is that the State Council is going about it the wrong way.  Give 21st century media companies more room to grow and maneuver rather than invest in last century’s media technologies that are rapidily disappearing.

Still not convinced?

The number TV network in the market is not ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox but the Spanish language Univision.  In a market where the majority of the population do not speak English as their first language, it is instructive to watch what happens in the ethnic market as a guide for the overall direction of local media across the US’ top 20 major media markets.

For the past thirty years, the pan-Asian language TV station KSCI TV LA 18 reigned supreme.  With its full-power broadcast license that affords it “must carry” status on every cable and satelitte network in the region along with a powerful over the air broadcast signal, LA 18 was the one to beat.  Over the past decade, though, KSCI’s dominance in the marketplace waned as new, larger players saw opportunity in the million+ Chinese language viewers across the Greater Los Angeles region.  Taiwan’s satellite channels ETTV and CTI were among the first major networks to plant their roots in Southern California, building production and sales operations for their nationally distributed channels.  Not long after, Hong Kong channels like TVB and Phoenix began to make their investment in the region following their competitors from Taiwan.  Unlike other major Chinese populations in the US like San Francisco and New York, Los Angeles was ideally suited for these Hong Kong and Taiwan networks.   A large and growing native-Chinese speaking labor pool made it far easier to staff along with the country’s best broadcast infrastructure were two key criteria that made Southern California an ideal fit.  After establishing themselves on Dish Network and Directv along with building a solid DTH (Direct To Home) satellite platform, the Hong Kong/Taiwan nets turned their attention to building relationships with cable operators in the key Chinese areas.  Now, across the region, on both cable and satellite, between 8-10 various direct-from-Asia Chinese language networks are available to viewers.  The catch, and there’s always a catch, is that both cable and satellite operators did not want to give up valuable bandwidth capacity for a relatively small niche market.  If you are at Time Warner and ESPN or MTV approches you to air a channel that will be relevant to three out of the six million TV homes in the market compared to a Chinese language station that appeals to a vastly smaller slice of the audience, the choice is rather clear.  So in response, the cable/sat networks all placed the Chinese channels on premium tiers that required additional monthly fees.

So long as Chinese language programming remained in the premium tier, KSCI was safe from significant competition.  Chinese consumers are famous for the tight spending and the prospect of adding $40-$70 to the monthly cable bill for extra premium channels was not very appealing for most viewers.  The easy access (again, the station’s unique must-carry status gives the channel unrivaled distribution over its rivals) for viewers to watch the station gave it a huge advantage.  That advantage, though, came under new attack in the early 2000s when access to the public airwaves opened up through introduction of digital television.  For most American consumers, DTV was a non-event that occured on June 12, 2009.  I say it was a non-event since the majority of television viewers in this country receive their signal via cable and satellite services that were unaffected by the switch from analog to digital signals.  In immigrant communities across the country, over the air TV remains the preeminent distribution channel so this switch marked an important milestone.  In the years leading up to the June 12th DTV deadline, a number of stations in the LA market added digital transmission to their analog signals to take advantage of the growing number of consumers who could access these signals with new digital-ready tvs.  LA’s Chinese language TV market then experienced an explosion of choice.   One after another, Chinese programmers rushed into the marketplace with a high quality television programming from the ROC, HK and PRC.  Now instead of just having one over the air channel, there are four.  In all, over a dozen Chinese language broadcasters now fight it out for a slice of the market.

What makes this media battle so unique is that it is one of the only regions in the world where broadcasters from Taiwan, Hong Kong and China all make their content available on an equal footing.  In China, as is widely known, channel line-up and preference is given to state broadcasters.  In Hong Kon and Taiwan, there are formidible restrictions to what networks can air on certain platforms.  In the US, Southern California specifically, no such limitations exist.  While this bounty of choice is a blessing for the consumer, it will be interesting to see how many of these broadcasters can survive in a tight ad market with so much competition.