Wikipedia Annual Donation Campaign

By the end of the year, Wikipedia will kick-off its fundrasing campaign though banner notice on each page to encourage users' donation (you can always choose to hide the notice) . As someone who always plans to edit more entries but fails to do so, writing a check is the best way to technically accomplish the plan (though a very small amount). Later one day, I read a tweet saying why Wikipedia does not keep advertising on each page. In that way, users can choose to view the ad or not, and Wiki dont need to do this donation campaign again and again every time.

It sounds O.K. at first glance because we've already get used to advertising-supported free content, and this turn on/off ad option keeps some voluntary meaning. However, in my mind, I just automatically rejected this idea and did not know why. This week, as I finished the book Predictable Irrational (Dan Ariely, 2008, HaperCollins), I found the answer to my spontaneous reaction.

In this enlightening book, the author conducts all kinds of focus group experiments to study behavioral economics. One chapter is about the cost of social norms and market norms. Sometimes, we put a lot efforts to do something but dont expect the cash pay back, for instance, cooking Thanks Giving dish for the family, the example in the book. This is the social norm. On the other hand, we expect that when we sit in the office for 8 hours (even just browsing Facebook page), we are adding money to our account. This is the market norm.

Researchers did an experiment in a day care center: initially, there was no fine for being late to pick up the children. The parents and the teachers understand the situation based on social norms that people do get late occasionally and they should not do that again to bother teachers. Then, the day care center imposed a fine of being late. Since a pay relationship is involved, the social encounter is being replaced by market norms that parents can choose to be late or not. And the late cases did not decrease as expected. Then, when the center dropped the fine , getting back to the social contract, parents still pick their kids late, even slightly more often. The author concludes from this experiment that social relationship will not be reestablished easily once it is trumped by the market norm.

And, this explains why Wikipedia cant not use advertising, even voluntarily, for funding. Advertising is totally a commercial concept following the market rule; let alone it will break Wikipedia’s neutral point of view, it will also ruin the collective efforts of Wikipedia as a social media foundation. Adding advertising essentially leads to market-value norms, even not for profits; once this market norm being introduced, the social norm, the volunteer spirit of Wikipeida will hardly be impaired.

As I finally figure out this puzzle, another question came to my mind. As social media becomes so overwhelming, how do we justify the “social meaning” when it is advertising supported? Is it another situation where social norms collide with market norm?

China Shuts down Major P2P Servcies

Last brilliant idea from Chinese government regarding Internet development was the Green Dam filter software, and this time is the massive shutdown of P2P services based file share websites, such as VeryCD.com and BTChina. The officials who issue the notification are the infamously well-known SARFT and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). According to them, these websites have to be shut down because they don’t own the “Information Network Broadcast Audio Visual Programming Permission Certificate".

• From the BTChina website: (BTCHINA was notified by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) that because of the absence of audio-visual broadcasting license, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of PRC is to delete our record number and shut down the site. As for my personal safety, once again to prove rumors on the internet are untrustworthy, especially the news is the most unreliable, translated by Chinahush)

Initially, I doubt that it was the pressure from copyright holders oversea so the government has to take some action and these small websites become targets due to their huge popularity like the Pirate Bay case. Yet, after reading SARFT's regulation and blogger analysis, I realize this is not simply because of copyright infringement and censorship, it is still the question about who control the Internet content in the coming years. The SARFT definitely want to demonstrate their authority by then end of another year challenged by growing Internet activists.

This decision reveals the conflict of interests between two government departments the SARFT and MIIT. The popularity of these video sharing websites in some way humiliates SARFT since most of them promote cultural products from other countries, and SARFT want to defend their territory and control these websites as they do in traditional media. Yet, because these websites are not authorized by them but by MIIT, so SARFT has to compete with the clout of MIIT . This time, it is SARFT’s regulation forces MIIT to withdraw those websites’ licenses. As some bloggers have noticed, SARFT and MITT’s conflicts can be traced back to the development of IPTV and mobile television, anything between the media content and information technology. Two departments have not decided the disciplines and those service providers will be suffered because of these changing regulations.

I think fundamentally it is SARFT’s fear of lose the grip of media control that drives this shut down. According to government website (Chinese), the website should be state owned or state funded in order to be eligible for the Internet program permission certificate. Chances are rare that those fans organized private P2P share websites could meet this qualification. Therefore, it becomes clear that SARFT still wants to control Internet content especially as they see the threat of growing video streaming and video sharing business. Essentially, the crackdown of P2P share websites is another attempt to against the decentralized Internet trend.

References:

1. China shuts down BitTorrent websites (ChinaHush)
2. VeryCD.com may be closed for not having a license (Danwei)
3. State Funded Business Advances and Private Owned Business Retreats: recent regulations of online content influences the future of video business (Chinese)

Made in China Campaign

Today, both LA Times and PR Weekly mentioned that Chinese government has hired western background media companies to burnish the image of Chinese government and Made in China products.

The government hired Hill& Knowlton as its PR firm three months ago and now announced DDB Communications ( of Omnicom Group) for its advertising agency. The tag line of the 30 sec ad, which debuted on CNN, is Made in China is Made with the World. LA Times analyzes that it is the government’s attempt to relieve the intense trade relationship between China and western countries.

I agree that the main objective is to recover from those negative images, such as poisonous toys, or contaminated milk powder scandals, in investors’ minds and invite them back to China. During this global economy recession, many outsourcing manufacture factories in China have closed because of less needs in global market. Also, the ad campaign at the holiday season, is sending the message to bring consumers’ confidence to made in China toys and clothes since some consumers will avoid (quite impossible to completely eliminate ) made in china labels.

Besides the message of the ad, I think it is interesting to see they choose CNN for the commercial debut. For a long time, Chinese government and its media have taunted CNN for fabricated news and manipulated editing, which have constantly dignify the image of Chinese government (even with a website anti-cnn.com ). However, the government now picks up CNN for publicity. It seems the officials finally realize that business relationship is better than hostility with western media. The government has expanded its media outlets, such as XinHua News Agency, CCTV, etc. to reach western audiences, which I think is really useless, just thinking the stereotype ( or the fact) of Chinese mainstream media. And this business relationship serves the purpose better since mainstream media will not say too much bad thing about their big advertisers.

The LA Times article ended with several cynical quotations, doubting the cost and result of the campaign. I just want to recognize it as a positive sign that the government realizes the urgency to address this issue and is trying new approaches. And, I wish it is also a sign that the government develops a liberal view toward western media. Finally, here's a peak of the commercial (I have not found it on YouTube).