Zuckerberg attacks Chinese Internet companies, but FB’s domestic business is not small


Source: unsplash
Original title: Zuckerberg attacks Chinese Internet companies, but Facebook’s domestic business is not small
It was originally a debate about commercial legitimacy, but its nature has changed because of some surprising statements.
Source: interface news
Author: Wu Yangyu
A few days ago, a massive antitrust hearing pushed CEOs of four major U.S. technology companies to the forefront, with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg apparently at the top of the list.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s parent company alphabet head sandar Pichai were investigated by the US House antitrust Committee at noon on July 29 (Wednesday).
This investigation mainly focuses on whether there is unfair competition in its dominant market position. In addition, they will respond to the regulation of online speech, and respond to political questions about the new epidemic.
It was originally a debate about commercial legitimacy, but its nature has changed because of some surprising statements.
Double faced Zuckerberg
In such a strong CEO camp, what makes Zuckerberg stand out from the Chinese audience is his performance in Q & A.
According to reports, a member of the US House of Representatives asked four CEOs whether they thought the Chinese government was stealing technology and trade secrets from US technology companies. In the absence of direct evidence from the other three CEOs, Zuckerberg made it clear that the Chinese government was stealing from US technology companies.
Not only that, Zuckerberg also raised the competition of technology companies to the “ideological” level. Facebook believes in the values of democracy, competition, inclusion and freedom of speech in the U.S. economy, but that does not guarantee that it “will win,” he said.
The “example” he cites is China, which he says Chinese Internet companies have taken a different approach and are exporting values to other countries on their own. It is generally believed that the company that Zuckerberg did not name directly is tiktok, a bytecomplex company.
If we put aside whether tiktok is “exporting values”, Zuckerberg’s stated position will not hold water in the first place.
Let’s start with the recent political advertising. This is the year of the presidential election in the United States, and since the end of last year, there has been a heated discussion about banning political advertisements because people believe that they contain politicians’ lies. Even in February, more than 40 protestors gathered outside his San Francisco home in Zuckerberg, shouting “wake up, Zach.”.
Facebook has no clear response. In a speech delivered by Zuckerberg some time ago, he also defended “freedom of speech”. However, according to the latest news from foreign media, two people familiar with the situation said that Facebook executives were considering banning political advertising on the platform before the November election in order to ease the pressure, but the decision is still full of uncertainties.
In addition, in the US social network, the content of incitement and false news also emerge in an endless stream, which has caused great damage to the ecology of the content platform. Facebook, which is hard to avoid, could have tagged content like Twitter to alert users, but Facebook refused, on the pretext that it didn’t want to be an “arbiter of facts.”.
Two or three times of evasion has caused Facebook to fall into a crisis of public trust, and the outside world can not help but believe that the technology giant is courting American politics in various ways. In fact, in the case of political advertising, Democratic politicians have tweeted that Facebook is helping trump win the election and has profited from it in the same way.
In other words, Zuckerberg is busy attacking Chinese Internet companies, while sticking to the platform position, he gives up. This practice of using “ideology” to stir up political contradictions and attack business rivals when it is against the values of the technology industry may have gone away from the world’s first seen Facebook.
Facebook’s business in China
Position is the position, business is business. The sea going enterprises’ advertising on Facebook has not stopped, and the sea marketing company, which makes a living, is still busy receiving orders.
However, it is not known whether the stability of this business will be affected by the changes in the international situation from now on.
However, it is clear that Facebook’s position in search and display advertising will not decline in the short term.
Facebook still accounts for the largest proportion of its purchases, and this is no exception in the industry, an offshore marketing company told interface news reporters.
Take papaya mobile, which recently announced its intention to list on the gem, as an example. This overseas marketing company places advertisements on Facebook, youtube and other platforms for domestic enterprises, mainly including search display and effect.
According to public information, from 2017 to 2019, its search and display advertising accounted for 91.41%, 97.05% and 98.37% of the total revenue, which was the absolute main revenue.
Among them, the company’s procurement of the top five mainstream suppliers accounts for more than 95% in three years. Among the mainstream suppliers, the company’s purchase of Facebook accounted for 87.81%, 91.99% and 82.21% respectively, and the purchase amount was 1.877 billion yuan, 3.807 billion yuan and 3.157 billion yuan respectively.
In fact, this is seen as an industry characteristic. Blue cursor, a listed company with similar marketing business with papaya mobile, also uses Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, twitter and other platforms as the main traffic channels. The company’s procurement proportion of the top five suppliers from 2017 to 2019 is 33.08%, 64.27% and 75.43% respectively.

And marketing companies based on domestic advertising platforms, such as Jiayun technology and Tengxin shares, have about 65% to 80% of their top five suppliers. Their main customers are Baidu, byte hop, Tencent guangdiantong, Alibaba TaNx, etc.
This means that as long as the platform’s monopoly position in the market is high enough, advertisers can hardly migrate.
However, there are also new trends to be noted. At the moment when Zuckerberg made the above remarks, titanium technology announced that it has officially become the official authorized agent of Facebook in China. The company will obtain the support of Facebook official resources and can provide better Facebook advertising service.
In its official propaganda article, the multi-channel marketing company pointed out that at present, more and more domestic advertisers began to favor KOL promotion, and the overseas market was no exception. The differentiated online celebrity marketing service has become one of its service highlights. Among them, in 2019, the total online marketing expenditure of China’s offshore market reached 6.5 billion US dollars. Take tiktok for business and like for example, the marketing budget of KOL online celebrities accounts for about 35% of the total budget.
In recent years, most of the so-called online celebrities have risen from youtube, instagram, tiktok and other content platforms, which means that when online celebrities become an emerging marketing method, Facebook’s advertisers are losing a lot – of course, this is also the main reason why Facebook has provoked attacks.
At present, tiktok is at an important moment. According to former foreign media reports, US President trump is likely to issue an order to force byte skipping to strip tiktok from its system and sell it to US companies, otherwise the app will face the situation of being banned.
The latest news from Reuters is that after trump made it clear on Friday that it had decided to disable the app, byte skipping has agreed to completely divest tiktok’s business in the United States, and the separated business may be taken over by Microsoft.
Although all three parties have not commented, the situation is clearly approaching the final answer. Since then, there may be a series of changes in the competitive pattern of the American advertising market, but will it really be the same as what Zuckerberg imagined?