Source: 42 Zhang Jing (WeChat ID: myfortytwo)
Author: Kai Qu
Pan chaos wrote a Xiong Wen calledTencent does not dream"The writing is very exciting. Many of the arguments in it are also very reasonable (especially in terms of organization and personnel, etc.), but from a business logic point of view, I have some different views.
"Tencent has no dream" This article questioned Tencent "is losing product capabilities and entrepreneurial spirit, into an investment company", is a "No faith, can not know what they really want something" company, so in Many levels are just busy "responding".
However, I think that what a company should really want to understand is what is its own core competence and business. It must not be allowed to let go. What can be let go and will not have an essential influence on the company.
The bigger the company, the more it is.
The core issue of Tencent's No Dream is to ignore this point.
In this article, Pan chaos said that Tencent has constantly fought in the core battlefields of search/weibo/e-commerce/information flow/short video/cloud. Many of the facts here are facts, but there is a key problem and it may be a little bit hurt. , That is Tencent has always been so ah.
You know, Tencent never knew how many years ago it had tried to do its own search and e-commerce business. It hasn't been done. Many of the issues that followed were just continuations. (It's as if Google wants to socialize from start to finish, and it hasn't been the same)
However, the nature of Tencent is a social company, a game company, and a company that makes money by doing value-added services. Therefore, it is a fact that Tencent has been coping with or losing in many other areas. But when you look at the two things related to social networking and gaming, when did Tencent ever relax?
Now if there is a company that says I want to do social networking, even if I see a little bit of a sign, Tencent must take the whole company's power to kill the company. I don't believe anyone will doubt it.
What about the game business? As before the Chinese enterprisesWritten by an article:
But if it comes to the main business such as games, Tencent generally requires a controlling or acquisition. In 2008, Tencent obtained a 22.34% stake in Riot Games, the developer of League of Legends, in an investment form. It increased its capital and held 92.78% after three years. At the end of 2015, Tencent announced 100% acquisition of Riot Games. Such investment trajectory is not uncommon in the game field. In 2016, Tencent also spent US$8.6 billion to buy Supercell, a Finnish mobile game developer, from Softbank, the largest M&A in Tencent’s history.
You see, this is called to understand what is the foundation of your own life and what is your core business that you can't let go.
To put it plainly, one step back and say that information or short video hasn't been done yet. The headline was not without Baidu before, and Tencent was still the same Tencent.
As another example, is it important for Tencent to focus on social construction ecology? Yes. So, when it comes to WeChat payment (or applet), when did Tencent not resolutely, when did it fail to innovate, and when did it not have faith?
In just a few short years, we can start with WeChat payments from scratch and lag behind Alipay. This is great wisdom and great faith.
Therefore, I don’t agree with Tencent’s beliefs (or dreams) and do not know what I want. I even think the opposite is true. Tencent knows exactly what it wants and knows what is the most important. It seems that it is not so radical at many times.
Moreover, saying that Ali did not see the user sinking I may also believe that Tencent did not see I do not believe it. All users and data are on Wechat, Tencent is the same as the day.
"First mover isn't what's important — it's the last mover. Like Microsoft was the last operating system, and Google was the last search engine."
As Peter Thiel mentioned above, many times, the first-mover advantage is not always the most important, and the latter-advantage is important. Especially for giants such as Tencent, they can wait and see before investing. It's as if the U.S. team is now entering the taxi market.
Therefore, based on this, Tencent’s two core competencies that were identified by Tencent in the early stages “traffic” and “capital” are correct in my opinion. (In the investment bank and the secondary market, the study of the nature of business operations often exceeds the primary market and far exceeds that of the media.)
It is important to note here that Tencent does not talk about general traffic, but rather that “social traffic” is a steady stream of traffic pools, not just like most other companies that need to buy from the outside. (So even if the headline is currently in hot pursuit of Tencent, but there is still a qualitative difference, so even if the information flow of this product line Tencent lost is not so important).
Social traffic is the most advanced and the most original traffic. In the future, the private traffic of the entire Chinese Internet may be in the hands of Tencent.
Therefore, for Tencent, the short video does not do it is secondary, and whether the short video can grow socially is the absolute core. If there is a slight tendency for social vibes to be played, Tencent may not be merely the billions of people who are currently in microvision.
But to be honest, I don't think it's better to do vibrato and it's extremely difficult to get into socializing. Because the social event is entirely following the new dimensions, only when very new dimensions emerge (such as the mobile LBS attribute) can there be new social product opportunities.
The closest wave of recent opportunities is the Chinese version of Snapchat, which uses the "picture" dimension, but it turns out that it is difficult to have a similar soil in the country. (Specific analysis can be seen in our previous article "Decrypting Snapchat》)
Therefore, at the end of the original text of "Tencent has no dreams," Baidu was reconsidering and warning Tencent to continue to do so, and be careful about the future. I think it's wrong. Baidu's reflection is to reflect on why we didn't see through the changes in the mobile Internet and did not seize the new opportunities brought about by technological innovations, and gave the headline an opportunity.
However, what is lacking in the current market is technological innovation. I think that in the next five years, it will be very difficult for us to have opportunities for innovation in the magnitude of the mobile Internet, and there will be no new WeChat-quality social platforms. So at this time, Tencent's position is precisely the most stable and most needless to worry about. (If Ali and Tencent can only buy one stock, I must buy Tencent now)
Of course, to put aside a digression, if one day Tencent does not work, it may be a ruinous destruction, because once the new platform-level hardware/dimension appears, there may be a social platform migration, and Tencent may instantly lose all business Traffic base.
After all, the rise of social platforms is the most irregular, and this is precisely why Tencent wants to use a scientific management approach and huge resources to cope with the uncertainty of the future.
So even here, "redundant personnel" is worthwhile and necessary. Because social products are like this, they can only rely on "heaps" to tide over the final winners.
Therefore, although the headline product manager Chen Lin said, “If you look back on the past few years, cutting off Weibo and microvision is Tencent’s two major mistakes”, but in fact, Tencent’s core mistake is only one, that is, it is confiscated. Whatsapp, other errors are quantitative, social platforms such as Whatsapp are qualitative changes.
Everything mentioned above is centered on what is the core of Tencent and Tencent's own best understanding of their own dreams.
Then, based on the two core competencies of traffic and capital, what is Tencent's dream and what will Tencent do in the future?
Alpha Workshop once wrote a very interesting article called "What is the essence of Tencent? The answer they give is:
What is the essence of Tencent? Tencent has four levels:
1. Social and game companies
2. Internet platform enterprises
3. Financial holding company that exchanges stock rights
4. Enterprises that receive entrepreneurial tax
From 1 to 4 is getting worse, but the profits are getting thicker and thicker. Tencent’s tax collection is a social and gaming company in name. Societies and games are used to cover up the nature of taxation.
I think this is the biggest problem in the business logic of the article "Tencent has no dream." Tencent's path has always been very clear, and the dream is the same. It is about constantly deepening the flow and capital.
"Capital + traffic" "in practical terms, Tencent has seized the lifeline and entrance of the entire Internet" social traffic ", and then use the capital to start the ecological, all future ecological companies have to continue to pay taxes and be harvested. .
In the end, Tencent is a big taxpayer that can be measured by GDP. This is the so-called "rich foolish enemy".
Of course, Tencent does not have a dream, this article, many of the points of view from Tencent's point of view are reasonable, and some need to be vigilant, but there are some assumptions to infer the conclusion is not so reasonable.
1) Tencent must make every decision to cut down the unsuccessful innovative business that it cuts, and keep the future that may come up, even if it costs a lot of money.
There is a contrast here. Everyone thinks that the U.S. group is a company that has successfully expanded its new business, but in fact, as stated by Wang Huiwen’s internal letter:
One other aspect that must be mentioned is that we have more business exploration unsuccessful than we have seen in the outside world.
This included nearly 10 services such as breakfast takeaways, queuing machines, WiFi, etc. If it were even further, there were close to 10 exploration services before the establishment of the intranet.
Only at that time we were relatively young and failed explorations were not exposed by the industry.
Therefore, it is impossible to criticize the redundancy of the company again, and it will not allow the company to close down new businesses. It will not be able to require every decision of the company to be correct. It is imperative that the relevant parties concerned should be closed. Adhering to the end is particularly promising.
2) Tencent should do less investment, make more innovations, and do more of its own main business. Does that mean that Tencent's development strategy will return to 2010 and roll back investment and opening up business?
Not to mention that we have just said what Tencent's dream is and how it will make money in the future. Let's just say Tencent’s development strategy.
We talked many years ago that overseas venture capital ecology is good and the environment for innovation is good. Why? Is it because U.S. giant companies like to invest in and acquire small companies, and why did Tencent be defamed? Because Tencent likes to plagiarize, others made Tencent to copy one, so it has "" if Tencent also do your thing how to do "" this classical problem.
Isn't it time we want to let Tencent not invest in it and return to that era?
If so, then I would rather Tencent have no dream.
In 2017, according to data compiled by Techcrunch, the number one global foreign investment company was Google, which invested 107, followed by Tencent, and invested 72 (actually more).
I think this is a very proud thing. If it is said that Tencent has become an investment company and has lost its dream, I hope that more large technology companies will not have dreams.
Therefore, I do not agree with Tencent's "capital + traffic" is the investment bank thinking that is too focused on short-term ROI, but I think this is a very long-term strategy that looks very much into the future.
In the long run, this ecosystem will be better if only the entire Chinese Internet is innovated.
The book "Tengxun Biography" written by Wu Xiaobo is a matter of opinion, but I think his new book, "Big Fish" is a good name.
If the water is big, the fish will be big.