This article addresses the following external sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/28/us-alibaba-group-government-idUSKBN0L10BU20150128
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-saic-criticizes-alibaba-over-fake-goods-1422425378
Early Wednesday morning, 28 January 2015, Forbes, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal each published articles addressing the intense recent battle between Alibaba (also, 'Ali') and the Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), also covered by Huxiu (see here: Alibaba's Retaliation in SAIC War and here: 1,001 Netizens: Comments on Alibaba and the SAIC).
In this piece we examine the articles put forth by these three publications to assess their respective approaches to this event.
Of the three pieces, Forbes comes most to Ali's aid. Alongside Alibaba's weighty critique of SAIC director Liu Hongliang, Forbes's author also includes a more amenable sound-bite from the company: "We understand the difficulties faced by the regulatory authority in regulating a fast-changing innovative environment … We hope we can all work together to solve this problem through Internet technology and big data."
One SAIC critique against Ali was the latter's lax approach to eliminating fake goods on its Taobao shopping platform, but Forbes's Yue Wang has numbers at the ready: company expenditures ($160 million) to repel counterfeits, as well as the number of counterfeit cases (1,000) on which it has cooperated with authorities.
While the Forbes piece also suggests that Ali could have been smarter about how to address this problem, it then proceeds to remind readers that Jack Ma is China's wealthiest man – as if to say a few misspent (millions of) bucks aren't a big concern for the company. Fair enough.
More vigorously than the other publications, the Reuters article situates this debate in the context of China's interminable problem with fake goods. After introducing the thrust of the issue and the January 23 white paper, the entire second half of the article addresses illegitimate products: the government's outspoken views on them, collaboration between Ali and the government to stamp them out, how they remain a central problem in China (evidenced with a remark from an IP consultancy director), other Ali misconducts involving fake goods and ending with a complaint Alibaba is filing against the SAIC for a separate counterfeits accusation.
Have you got the picture yet?
On Reuters, the loggerheads between state and company is more than anything yet another example of the long shadow cast by Chinese companies' notoriety for fake goods and the challenges faced in throwing off this yoke and becoming safe for consumers and investors alike.
Finally, the Wall Street Journal is easily the most damning of Alibaba. It aptly sums up the conflict and reels off three paragraphs (out of six) that restate the white paper's major allegations against the online shopping platform.
Without analysis to suggest whether these allegations hold water, the WSJ article is likely to dissuade investors who are essentially looking at a long rap-sheet issued by the infamously stern and seemingly omnipotent Communist Party of China.