Facebook has a China problem. But it’s not alone.
VentureBeat reported late last week on Facebook’s behind-the-scenes deliberations on how and when to enter the Chinese Internet market—now the world’s largest, with an estimated 230 million users. The key question in these deliberations is whether or not to launch a Chinese-specific version of its site or to proceed in that country with the one-site-fits all globalization strategy that it is pursuing in the rest of the world.
We think that Facebook has the right idea by taking an approach to globalization that is designed to create a single, unified social network that spans every country and market around the world. And in general, we think that this approach to media globalization will ultimately supplant the localization strategies that most global media enterprises currently pursue, due to the huge strategic advantage it will confer on any company that can pull it off.
So the fact that Facebook may be questioning this strategy with respect to China should give one pause. Why would you try to create a single, unified, global social network without including the largest Internet market in the world? The answer, of course, is politics. China takes a hard line on wayward political speech, and its tough tactics have caused a number of global media enterprises—Yahoo, most ignominiously among them—to block dissident sites and turn over information that has lead to the arrest and imprisonment of Chinese citizens for free speech crimes. A localized version of Facebook would keep it out of some potentially sticky situations that could trigger a showdown between the government and Facebook’s global user base—a worldwide protest over China’s Tibet policy, for example.
In even considering shelving its core strategy in China’s case, though, Facebook underscores a strategic weakness that all the leading US-based global media organizations unfortunately share. Despite the fact that they almost all uniformly harbor global ambitions and have some sort of globalization strategy, these companies seem to have given almost no thought to their role as global corporate citizens.
The evidence of this is easy to come by. Check out the published membership rosters of Business for Social Responsibility or the participant and stakeholder list for the UN Global Compact (the leading international initiative for corporate social responsibility), and US media companies are virtually not to be found. IT companies, management consulting firms, consumer product organizations—the top US companies in all these categories and more are to be found on these lists. But not media companies—neither traditional media firms like Time-Warner nor Internet pure plays like Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.
Whatever their reason, the fact that US media firms are not engaging with global institutions of corporate social responsibility means that they have little leverage in dealing with countries like China on matters of social justice and global social norms. And as a result, they are forced to consider courses of action that undermine their long term, strategic best interests.
As businesses in other sectors are proving, global corporate social responsibility institutions are creating critical mass around topics of global social importance, enabling firms to develop sane, consensus strategies for dealing with matters of environmental sustainability, consumer safety, and labor standards. These reduce risk and preserve firms’ legitimate strategic interests. If media enterprises want to enjoy the full potential of the global social web, it would make a lot of sense for them to start engaging with the global institutions that could help them to make that possible.