U.S. brands suffer damage in Chinese corporate war

SHANGHAI -- It was looking like a banner year for business in China. The U.S. clothing company was expecting a 20 percent jump in online sales on Alibaba's Tmall, thanks to the e-commerce giant's massive reach.

But executives soon learned what Alibaba gives, it can also take away.

The company refused to sign an exclusive contract with Alibaba, and instead participated in a big sale promotion with its archrival, JD.com Inc. Tmall punished them by taking steps to cut traffic to their storefront, two executives told The Associated Press. They said advertising banners vanished from prominent spots in Tmall sales showrooms, the company was blocked from special sales and products stopped appearing in top search results.

The well-known American brand saw its Tmall sales plummet 10 to 20 percent for the year.

"Based on our sales record, we should have been in a prominent position, but we were at the bottom of the page," said the brand's e-commerce director, who spoke only on condition of anonymity for fear of further retaliation. "That's a clear manipulation of traffic. That's a clear punishment."

As the Trump administration pushes China to play by fair trade rules, companies are caught in a quieter but no less crucial struggle for fair access to a $610 billion online marketplace, an AP investigation has found.

Executives from five major consumer brands told the AP after they refused to enter exclusive partnerships with Alibaba, traffic to their Tmall storefronts fell, hurting sales. Three are American companies with billions in annual sales relying on China for growth.

In a statement, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. said pursuing exclusive deals is a common industry practice and called the charges of coercion "completely false."

"Alibaba and Tmall conduct business in full compliance with Chinese laws," Alibaba said. "Like many e-commerce platforms, we have exclusive partnerships with some of the merchants on Tmall. The merchant decides to choose such an arrangement because of the attractive services and value Tmall brings to them."

Imagine a company twice as profitable as Amazon each year serving more people than live in all of North America. That's Alibaba. It claims to be the marketplace for nearly $550 billion a year in sales -- more than is sold online in the entire U.S. economy.

The trials of the affected companies offer a rare window onto a bruising business culture forged in China potentially spreading as Alibaba takes its aggressive, innovative and hugely profitable model of e-commerce global. To the extent their products are manufactured in the United States -- and some are -- constricting sales in China's critical growth market can also deepen the imbalance of trade between China and the U.S., a top concern for the Trump administration.

The competition between Alibaba and JD.com is so infamous in China -- and so dirty -- it's been dubbed the "great cat-and-dog war," after Tmall's black-cat mascot and JD.com's white dog.

The executives spoke to the AP only on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, but their concerns were echoed by a U.S. industry group, brand consultants and policy makers in China and JD.com itself.

In a speech about cyberspace last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping said ensuring free and fair competition online was a regulatory priority, citing the need "to cultivate a fair market environment, strengthen intellectual property protection, and oppose monopoly and unfair competition," state media reported.

In its months-long investigation, the AP interviewed more than 30 people and reviewed two contracts from Alibaba containing previously unreported exclusivity clauses. The AP found the platforms controlling access to Chinese consumers online wield such enormous power even multibillion-dollar foreign companies can have trouble fighting back.

"We urge the authorities to quickly investigate and take steps to ensure such practices are eliminated from the growing Chinese marketplace," said Stephen Lamar, executive vice president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, adding members of his industry group had complained about unfair competitive practices by Alibaba.

JD.com is a member and sponsor of the trade group.

Wang Hongbo, a consultant who helps Chinese brands sell online abroad, echoed the problems cited by the companies who spoke to AP.

"Many brands complained about this to us. Because they didn't fall in line, they faced restrictions on Tmall," he said.

It's not clear whether Alibaba's actions would be illegal, nor is it certain the evidence of coercion brands have managed to collect would hold up in court. Under China's anti-monopoly laws, companies dominating a market cannot demand exclusivity without justification. A 2015 regulation also specifically bars e-commerce platforms from restricting brands' participation in promotions on other platforms.

The rules are designed to prevent dominant players from squeezing out the competition, which could ultimately hurt both brands and consumers by giving a single, monopolistic player absolute control over prices.

JD.com said more than 100 Chinese brands defected last year because of pressure from its main rival, an assertion Alibaba and some brands have contested. The exodus appears to have had a lasting impact.

"Based on the feedbacks we received from these merchants, the move was mainly due to the coercive tactics from our competition, which if proven true would be illegal and clearly against the merchants' will," said Sidney Huang, JD.com's chief financial officer, said in a November earnings call.

Peacebird, a Chinese fashion company, is among those leaving JD.com last year. But Weng Jianghong, the company's general manager of e-commerce, said Alibaba had not coerced them and the decision to focus on Tmall was strategic.

"We will centralize and develop the limited resources of our company on Tmall," he said.

Many companies, including JD.com, do exclusive deals. However, JD.com maintains it doesn't strategically push merchants for exclusivity.

"We support fair and open competition because greater choice is always better for brands and users," JD.com said in a statement. "We are winning over customers by providing a superior shopping experience, rather than by limiting the options of brands or consumers."

JD.com is still trying to get brands to return. "We do believe there will be more merchants coming back," Huang said in a call last month with analysts. "But I do not expect a very quick fix."