Chinese Economics Thread

PiSigma

"the engineer"
I delivered proof .

It showing that the Chinese companies have marginal brand value compared to even the Japanese ones.

If you you don't like it bring better : )
Brand value... Lol like it said you keep on moving those goal posts. Brand value by some website is meaningless. No one in the world looks at Brand value when they go buy a car or tv. I have recently bought a Volvo, didn't bother looking at their brand value. But what I found was the BMW and Audi that I test drove just didnt feel as good as the Volvo. Ur brand value is like my feelings, if I like it I judge it highly, if not then forget it.

In this forum, you have proven ur arguments (feelings) are worth nothing, because you had not brought any value to this forum. I rank blitzo, and deino much higher simply because what they feel is more valuable. How that for ur brand value to know it is not worth anything?
 
Talking about Brand Value. AndrewS's message brand value is rated 2007/1386 = 1.45 compared to Anlsvrthnk message value of 112/630 = 0.18. Let's move on and not waste any more of our time with low brand value messages.

upload_2018-11-23_11-54-59.png
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I delivered proof .

It showing that the Chinese companies have marginal brand value compared to even the Japanese ones.

If you you don't like it bring better : )
Hey, I think skipped my proof. You needed to prove that:

1. Valve has no or very weak hierarchy. You've failed; you showed a reduction in layering of hierarchy but actual concentration of power among the elite.
2. Valve's performance is TWICE that of its major competitors which you claim use more rigid hierarchy. You have not attempted this; likely because you've realized it's stupid and wrong.
3. Number 1 causes number 2 instead of coinciding with it. You can't begin number 3 until you meet both 1 and 2 so obviously, you cannot attempt this.

Doing all of the above would show that your idea is at least possible in a single outlier case. If you can do it, you would be neither wrong nor right. If you wanted to be right and prove me wrong, then after that, you would still need to demonstrate that of all the companies in the world, the ones with more rigid structures tend to do worse and the ones that allow more freedom to their workers tend to do better; you need to show this in a data trend of NON-CHERRY-PICKED companies (for example, all Fortune 500 companies) to actually prove your point.

If you can't even do 1, 2, 3, I think you should offer a heart-felt concession that your idea of the masses running themselves without leadership to increase performance is a complete figment of your imagination. Trust me, Mr. Low Brand Value, we all know; we just wanna see if you take any responsibility for your own statements.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


How the Huawei relating to the Samsung / Apple as brand?
Why you think that the Huawei carry any value beyond as a manufacturer of cheap phones ?

My point was simple : the Chinese brands has no or minor standing in the world.
The data supporting it, the samsung worth nine times more than the Huawei, and that is the biggest Chinese brand.
Profit difference similar .

So, if we go into data driven mode, how good is China standing in regards of brand value in the world, compared to say SK or Spain, as a matter of fact?

Again, you're trying to change the goalposts.

Before, you were arguing that Huawei had no brand value and only made low end smartphones offered by carriers.

I think Tam and I have demonstrated that this is not the case. That is to say, factually, you are incorrect to suggest that Huawei only makes low end smart phones and has no brand value. In the global smartphone market, Huawei is considered one of the leaders.


As for how much brand value Huawei has to Apple or Samsung, I do not see how that is relevant to what you were claiming before. The reason why many Chinese brands are big yet do not have global perceived brand value is because they manage to become giants simply by operating within China itself. Global brand recognition only starts to happen once they choose to venture abroad.

In that sense, Huawei is a bit of an anomaly because they rapidly gained brand recognition and created a name for themselves in the smartphone world over barely half a decade since going more international, and despite having US related controversy as well.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
It is true for every country, if you look around in Russia you can found many valuable brand that you never heard of.

Interesting is in the 1962 Dr No movie you can see Sony advertisement, and the Japanese / Koreans has many valuable global brands.

And if we go into details then based on your example one spanish brand surpass the valuation of the top three Chinese brand.

But the original point was that even if there is no brands in Eastern Europe , there are many western country that has no or only few global brand.

And if we go back to check the situation of China it has practically zero global brand .

I don't say that it is a problem, but nevertheless it is an interesting observation.

you need to research more and get out from the "cave" ... your knowledge of Chinese products are 10 years out of date

btw .. you sound like @SamuraiBlue ... ?
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Interesting, the Apple made 50 billion $, the Samsung made similar amount of money in 2017, the Huawei made 7.5 billion $ in the same period as profit.


Total BS. Sony doesn't and Amazon doesn't make a lot of money either. You should check for total revenue.

Huawei completely blows away Sony when it comes to mobile sales. So does Oppo and Vivo too. All three also blows away LG. What is this branding that you speak of?
 
Top