Protests in Hong Kong intensified on Sunday as young people flooded the streets to demand democracy reform, free from the shackles of mainland China. According to Twitter (NYSE:TWTR), those protests have so far generated over 1.3 million tweets from participants, eyewitnesses, and supporters from around the globe.
As seen in the interactive chart created by Twitter’s number-crunchers (embedded below), things reached a peak around 11:30 PM local time on Sunday as Hong Kong police responded with tear gas to the peaceful crowd of tens of thousands of protestors at several points across the city. That peaked at a flow of 735 tweets per minute related to the Hong Kong protests.
That’s not the most intense Twitter storm ever, but it still shows strong interest in a student-led rally against authorities. Twitter’s record for tweets per minute goes to this year’s World Cup final, which reached a peak of 618,725 tweets a minute.
Today, the pro-democracy protests are entering their fifth night.
Here’s the chart from Twitter:
One of the most popular tweets so far comes from WSJ’s Troy McCullough, who attached a photo of the protestors the morning after picking up trash from the night’s protests.
McCullough also tweeted this remarkable photo from Monday night’s gathering, when the crowds held up their phones in an impressive display of lights and manpower:
To mark its transition, ACE will set up a physical presence in Launchpad, the heart of Singapore’s startup ambitions.
Letting go isn’t usually what the Singapore government is known for. But in this case, that’s precisely what it has done.
The Action Community for Entrepreneurship, or ACE, started in 2003 as a collaboration between the government and entrepreneurs to promote the spirit of enterprise in Singapore.
Now, it has moved into new territory and become more startup-like. Minister-of-State Teo Ser Luck will no longer helm ACE. Instead, the responsibility will fall on the shoulders of Dr. Steven Fang, a biotech entrepreneur.
The organization has also privatized, and will be seeking revenue to become self-sufficient. It will get funding from government agency Spring Singapore in the meantime, and it’ll be staffed by people from there.
“Bear in mind that this revenue is meant to cover the cost. We’re not there to make a profit,” says Fang.
ACE will act as a directory of events and resources for aspiring startup founders through its website and physical presence, which is called Ideation Lab and will be housed in LaunchPad, a government-designated startup cluster and centerpiece of the country’s entrepreneurial ambitions.
The Lab will open by December 2014 or January 2015, just a couple of months after the LaunchPad expansion is slated for completion. It aims to become a one-stop avenue for founders to register their companies and set up a corporate bank account. Government agency JTC will manage LaunchPad, while ACE will be the guide.
It’s also growing its international reach. ACE will set up an international advisory panel to give guidance to local companies. While it can’t yet share who’s on it, Teo says it includes founders from companies that Singapore dreams of one day creating.
All these initiatives will sit on top of programs now in place, such as the ACE Startup Grant, its mentoring scheme, and overseas chapters (it has a Beijing chapter, but is looking possibly at setting up a Shanghai, Suzhou, and Silicon Valley presence). It will continue lobbying for startup-friendly policies to the government, and will still support not just high-growth tech startups, but SMEs too.
Uncertain future
At the launch of this new ACE on September 29, there was an air of uncertainty about its path. While it plans to rely on pay-to-attend events as a source of income, it’s still figuring out what gaps it plans to fill in Singapore’s increasingly vibrant startup community.
“There are already tons of events and conferences, and the idea is not to compete with them, neither are we trying to replace them. What we’re trying to do is complement them [...] there are roadshowing and pitches. We’ve been looking at different models of pitching. There are now thoughts about a reverse pitch. So instead of a company pitching to investors, let investors pitch to a company,” says Fang.
There’s also some vagueness about what ACE will become in the further future. It’s unclear when, if at all, ACE will become self-sufficient, given it’ll need full-time staff. It is exploring partnerships with Google, Microsoft, and Bain Capital, but hasn’t revealed what form these tie-ups will take. ACE could eventually outlive its usefulness in Singapore as the community self-organizes and matures. Or it could expand out beyond the country to serve as a guiding post for Singapore entrepreneurs in China, Silicon Valley, and beyond.
This uncertainty isn’t bad. An advocacy organization, spearheaded entirely by entrepreneurs and operating under similar conditions of turbulence as startups, could just be what the entrepreneurial community needs.
Carousell, the Singapore-based startup that connects sellers of second hand goods with buyers through a mobile app, made inroads into Taiwan late last week with the launch of a traditional Chinese-language app in conjunction with a media event.
According to Taiwan’s Punnode, founder Siu Rui Quek and the Carousell team have chosen the island as a destination for expansion due to its relatively sophisticated ecommerce market – consumers are already accustomed to buying and selling goods online, and at present, there’s no clear market leader for mobile ecommerce.
Upon opening the Carousell app from Taiwan, one will spot the usual product categories – electronics, shoes, apparel – along with options to scroll through listings from Facebook contacts that are also on the app. Individual product listings consist of a single photo, a brief description, a pickup location, and a button that lets potential buyers chat directly with sellers. Other social features like “likes” and “follows” are also embedded in the app.
Judging by the small number of listings at present, Carousell isn’t yet bustling with activity from Taiwan. But the team tells Punnode that it will actively look for sellers willing to set up shop on the app, particularly those who specialize in handcrafted goods. It’s not yet clear if that entails a opening local office.
Taiwan’s ecommerce industry looks set to undergo major shifts in the coming year. Incumbents like Yahoo and PCHome, both of which have business-to-consumer marketplace apps in Google Play and the App Store, will soon face competition from Line. The popular messaging app, which boasts 17 million registered users among a population of 22 million people, will launch its own marketplace app in Taiwan this November. The government is also taking strides to devise laws that would allow third-party payment services like Paypal and Alipay to process online transactions.
There’s just over a month to go before the 2014 US elections, and that means candidates and their allies will unload a blitz of last-minute spending—especially to advertise in contested districts—in an election season that already has cost at least $1.2 billion. Where does the money come from and why does it matter?
What’s at stake
There will be plenty on the ballot this year, but the most important result to watch for is whether the Republican party will take control of the Senate away from president Barack Obama’s Democratic party. Republican control would make it much harder for the president to pursue his agenda or resist Republican proposals, likely cementing America’s policy gridlock through the 2016 presidential election.
There are a number of organizations with models * to assess the likelihood of this result. Remember, these numbers don’t represent public opinion, but the odds:
It doesn’t look good for the Democrats, does it? They face two challenges: One, only a third of the Senate’s seats are up for election (another third will be contested two years from now and the rest four years from now) and this year’s slate features states with structural advantages for Republicans. Second, a slow-recovering economy has failed to generate an improved standard of living for many Americans, and the lack of a meaningful response from Washington has soured attitudes toward incumbent politicians.
The question facing Senate Democrats is whether, in the nine Senate races that are expected to be competitive, a well-run campaign with compelling advertisements and an efficient get-out-the-vote operation can shift the outcome enough to protect a bare majority, especially as Republicans seek to capitalize on their opportunity.
The big nine: North Carolina, New Hampshire, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Louisiana, Alaska, and Arkansas
Party on, dudes
The first line of spending comes from the candidates: The average active Senate campaign in 2014—defined as spending more than $100,000—has spent $3.5 million so far this cycle and raised $5 million, according to Federal Election Committee data collected by the Sunlight Foundation.
Besides the fundraising done by the candidates, their parties can aid them through two different structures: Committees that can work with candidates and spend money on organizing, and so-called “independent expenditure” committees that can spend money on ads as long as they don’t coordinate with candidates. By the fundraising metric, the Democrats may have hope; the graphic below shows Democratic party committees have out-raised and out-spent their Republican opponents so far this election cycle:
It may surprise some that the party that most supports limits on campaign contributions is doing the best job raking them in, but there are key reasons: One is that Democrats still control two branches of government, and with influence comes financing from those interested in sharing in it. Another is that Democrats appear to have an advantage among small donors, as recent analysis by National Journal showed, which helps balance out the tendency of wealthier donors to support Republicans.
What about independent expenditures?
But the partisan advantage is likely overstated: Beyond candidates and their parties, there is a third category of spender in this political battle, made up of independent political action committees, nonprofits, unions, and businesses. The chart below shows the average spending by these groups, per Senate race this cycle, and here again Democrats appear to have an edge:
But these statistics can be especially deceiving, because recent changes in campaign finance law allow large political organizations to spend more money influencing elections without disclosing their activities. Take Americans for Prosperity, a major conservative political organization that is technically a social welfare nonprofit. It has disclosed $400,000 in spending to the FEC, the source of the figure above. But it also has spent some $50 million on advertising in the same period, according to a spokesperson. Similarly, Crossroads GPS, another conservative organization, and the Chamber of Commerce, a business trade group that disproportionately finances Republicans, have spent $14 million and $7 million, respectively, on advertising that was not reported to the FEC.
Where the money comes from
Here’s a glance at the top 15 donors to candidates and political committees, by industry:
The biggest source of money: retirees—always a good target for fundraisers, since they are wealthier on average and have more free time to care about things like politics—followed by the finance sector, lawyers and law firms, and the real estate industry. Notice, too, that two big sources of contributions are donations from one candidate or political action committee to another, and that environmentalists give more than lobbyists. Labor unions aren’t the big givers they used to be, coming in 19th on this list and not making the chart. And, of course, organizations that don’t disclose their donors, like Americans for Prosperity, don’t contribute to the data behind this list.
Into the home stretch
With just a month to go, much of the end-game already is set, at least from a spending perspective: Television advertising time is largely reserved in advance, and investments in get-out-the-vote efforts generally have been committed already at this point in the campaign. Execution, then, becomes paramount. Democrats are taking solace in the realization that the recent changes in campaign finance law that made unlimited secret spending possible also have made it diffuse, leading major donors who might have given to a coordinated party committee in the past to start making their own ads. But political scientists will tell you that, while advertising can make a difference in certain situations, the state of the economy and the electorate’s partisan preferences are far stronger indicators of who will win office.
* The trend in wonkier political coverage has given us a number of competing models that combine public opinion polling, historical election results, economic conditions, and various other factors to produce the probabilities of electoral outcomes. Check them out at FiveThirtyEight, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and the Washington Post.
Humans are wiping out animals so fast that populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish are roughly half what they were in 1970, according to the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Index (LPI), in its latest report (pdf). The index, which was compiled in partnership with the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, tracks more than 10,000 populations of 3,000 different vertebrate species, bundling them the way you might with stocks to compose the S&P 500 or a basket of goods to calculate consumer price inflation.
“Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half,” said Marco Lambertini, the director-general of WWF International. “These are the living forms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustain life on Earth. We ignore their decline at our peril.”
Of all the animal in the LPI, those that live in freshwater—including everything from fish and frogs to otters and geese—have suffered the most. Their populations have fallen more than three-quarters since 1970—a rate that’s nearly double that of land and marine species, which have dropped by 39% apiece. The WWF blamed the dwindling of freshwater species on habitat loss resulting from hydropower dam construction, industrial pollution, and other human activity.
But to evaluate mankind’s broader impact, the report constructed something called the “ecological footprint,” which tracks how much land and water—which the report terms “biocapacity”—a single person requires to both produce the resources he consumes and absorb the waste he creates.
It turns out that climate change is also a big factor behind the decline in species, according to this analysis. In 1961 only 36% of humanity’s ecological footprint came from burning fossil fuels; by 2010, that share had soared to more than half.
“While biocapacity has increased globally, there is now less of it to go around,” the WWF said. For instance, that if every person on Earth had the lifestyle of the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 planets. If everyone adopted American habits, we would need 3.9 planets.
But the blame doesn’t fall only on rich countries. Growing populations and wealth mean that even poorer countries are not living sustainably. If each human had the footprint of a South African, we would still need 1.4 planets. “Low-income countries have the smallest footprint,” the WWF notes, “but suffer the greatest ecosystem losses.”
According to a McKinsey and Co report, some 90 million Indonesians will join the consumer class by 2030. That’s more than in any other emerging market in the world, apart from China and India. For local brands, this will mean an additional US$1 trillion in annual spending by increasingly optimistic buyers.
Indonesia’s consumer spending currently sits at more than at 61 percent of the nation’s GDP. As the percentage of urbanites grows to roughly 71 percent of the total population in 15 years, spending is expected to grow in financial services, travel, leisure, and apparel.
It’s not just local firms and tech companies that can benefit. Tech lust among Indonesia’s consumers is increasingly geared toward Asian brands.
But Indonesia’s market is a complex one. It should be obvious to incoming startups and brands that localization is necessary. But that’s easier said than done in an economy where preferences are scattered across more than 17,000 islands. Here are a few points that tech brands should consider before coming to Indonesia.
Brand awareness
McKinsey claims Indonesians attach more importance to brands than any other nation it has seen at this stage of development, including China. 60 percent of Indonesian consumers prefer local brands. But interestingly enough, consumers aren’t strongly aware of brand ownership. Many consider Nestlé’s Kit Kat brand, for example, to be local. So multinationals aren’t exactly at a disadvantage, provided they can get good market positioning.
One way to do this is to partner with a local firm. Even if the brand or startup doesn’t actually have boots on the ground in Indonesia, it’s still worthwhile to form an alliance with a local marketing agency. A great example of this was Line, the popular messaging app, when it made an entrance into the Indonesian market. Line, which is based in Japan, partnered with local PR company FleishmanHillard in Jakarta, and set up seasonal promotions and pop-up stores around the capital. Indonesians have responded well to Line. It now has 30 million users nationwide as it battles WhatsApp.
Different strategies in different cities
Understanding the dynamics and differences between Indonesia’s major cities is crucial. McKinsey found that the behavior of buyers in Surabaya, for example, tends to be influenced more by brand and image than that of consumers in Jakarta. Surabaya’s consumers are also twice as likely to seek advice from family and friends before making purchase decisions. Incoming startups and growth businesses alike should be sure to do their homework with this in mind.
Many companies choose to enter the megacities before expanding beyond. This strategy has merit in terms of establishing a presence and brand recognition, and it can yield the quickest returns. But companies should not be lulled into a false sense of security from double-digit growth in these cities. They represent only a fraction of the opportunity – and a shrinking one at that, as smaller cities continue to experience higher growth rates.
A new report from global consumer insights company Trend Watching cites the now popular selfie tool Tongsis as one of the most successful products to capitalize on Indonesia’s cultural nuances. The report says:
Tongsis is short for Tongkat Narsis – literally ‘Narcissism Stick’, but better translated as ‘Selfie Stick’. It’s actually a monopod with a metal clamp at one end that holds a mobile phone, allowing users to take ‘massfies’ or ‘selfies’ with a wider angle. A perfect innovation in light of the popularity of spontaneous group photos in Indonesia.
Going digital
In Indonesia today, product information flows primarily from TV advertising and personal recommendations. McKinsey claims fewer consumers use the web for pre-purchase decisions – five percent in Indonesia versus 28 percent in China. But internet access is rising at an annual rate of 20 percent, and 100 million Indonesians will be connected to it by 2016.
Already, 60 percent of Indonesian adults own a mobile phone, Facebook usage is strong, and higher-income residents are flocking to the internet before buying cars. One major commercial bank has reported a 300 percent increase in online transactions over the past year.
In theory, it should be easier to localize an early-stage startup than an international conglomerate. But no matter how big or small, companies that plan to set up shop in the world’s largest archipelago will adapt or die as the market decides who is worthy. By embracing the nation’s complexity and diversity, overseas entrepreneurs may be able to catch a rising wave of consumerism in Indonesia.
Featured image via Flickr user Hairi; image of Tongsis boat user via Flickr user Didit Putra.
When Narendra Modi stood at New York’s Madison Square Garden last Sunday, it seemed that almost everyone in the adoring crowd of some 20,000 that surrounded him understood every word and phrase that the Indian prime minister uttered.
But by speaking almost entirely in Hindi, his language of choice even in diplomatic engagements, Modi left out a sizeable portion of the Indian diaspora in America.
That’s because the Indian diaspora in the United States is a hugely diverse community. And although it is dominated by Hindi and Gujarati-speaking groups, as perhaps suggested by the Bollywood-dominated song and dance routine that preceded Modi’s speech, there is more to one of America’s most successful immigrant groups than what meets the eye.
These six charts describe the diversity and economic and educational clout of Indian-Americans.
Spanish, of course, is the most widely spoken foreign language in the United States, with 34 million speakers. But based on US Census Bureau data, Indian languages (including Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Tamil and Bengali, which may be spoken by other nationalities, too) are the second most commonly spoken, greater than even Chinese and Tagalog (Filipino).
Within Indian languages, Hindi, Urdu and Gujarati are the most widely spoken, but the Indian diaspora speaks many more languages from across the subcontinent, evidence of the immigrant group’s diversity.
Although the Indian American community may not be the largest compared to other Asian American groups but according to the Pew Research Center, Indians are among the best educated and highest earning immigrants.
“People from all over come to America, Indians are everywhere in the world,” Modi said at Madison Square Garden. Barring parts of Africa, that’s almost entirely accurate.
