"The Industrial Anxiety Disorder in 2,800 Counties"

Summary of the Core Content

This news report exposes a bizarre yet realistic phenomenon: a robotics company valued at 50 billion yuan is seeking to enter the tech industry to sell spicy snacks. Behind this move isn't a business frenzy, but rather founder Yu Hao exploiting local governments' "industrial anxiety" to play a game of inflating company valuations. Due to a lack of viable projects and high performance pressures, county governments are forced to accept these seemingly promising PPT presentations. Yu Hao and his team precisely target the timing gap between officials' terms in office and when the projects fail, using official rhetoric to address their key performance indicators (KPIs), effectively turning the government into the scapegoat for these investments. At heart, this reflects a clash between venture capital (VC) logic and government decision-making processes, as well as the evolution of those who profit from these schemes—first targeting the elderly and investors, and now extending their reach to county governments.

1. Seeking to Sell Spicy Snacks: Not Crazy, but a Trick for Inflating Valuations

The expansion of Seeker Technology from floor-cleaning robots to coffee, milk tea, and spicy snacks is not driven by profitability, but rather the need to maintain a positive corporate narrative that supports higher valuations:

• The Floor-Cleaning Robot Story Is Over: Fierce market competition and stagnating growth have made investors less willing to invest in this sector, and the prospects for smart cars are uncertain in the short term.
• Fast-Moving Consumer Goods as a Valuation Lifesaver: Snacks and milk tea generate good cash flows, and their simple narratives (e.g., "smart + fast-moving consumer goods") allow valuations to remain plausible. Yu Hao's goal is not to make the company profitable but to create a new story that will attract larger investors for the next round of financing—much like Jia Yueting's "ecosystemic transformation" strategy, just rebranded with a different guise.
• In Plain Language: If you run a tech company that sells floor-cleaning robots and people find it unoriginal, you claim you're going into the smart snack business, which makes investors believe you have a fresh approach and are worth more investment, even if the snacks don't actually generate profits.

2. The "Industrial Anxiety" of County Governments: With Few Options for Investment

Of China's over 2,800 counties, most are competing for projects, but the best ones go to cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, which have access to talent, capital, and industrial ecosystems. Counties lack these advantages and are forced to settle for less attractive options:

• Where Do the Good Projects Go?: Unicorns valued at 1 billion yuan are prioritized by these cities, with counties left with no choice but to consider traditional manufacturing industries (e.g., textiles) or high-tech projects with appealing PPTs that promise substantial returns.
• Performance Pressure: County officials face pressure from higher authorities to boost GDP, create jobs, and upgrade their economies. Failing to secure a project is seen as inaction, which is more detrimental than a failed project. Since counties can't afford to waste resources on poorly planned projects, they often opt for the less profitable but seemingly promising high-tech options.
• The Timing Gap: Officials' terms in office align with the period when projects often fail. A county official's tenure (3–5 years) coincides with the 5–6-year cycle from project signing to failure. If a project fails, they can blame external factors or shift responsibility, avoiding accountability.

3. The Magic of Timing: The Mismatch Between Officials' Terms and Project Failures

Why don't officials fear project failures? Because the timing allows them to avoid taking responsibility:

• Terminology vs. Failure Cycle: County party secretaries serve for 3–5 years, while high-tech projects often take 5–6 years to fail. By the time a project fails, the official may have moved on to another position, making it difficult to hold them accountable.
• Failing Is Safer Than Doing Nothing: If a project fails, they can blame external factors; if it doesn't meet targets, it's seen as a learning opportunity. However, failing to secure any projects at all is disastrous for their careers.
• Collective Decision-Making: Projects are approved collectively, so no single person bears full responsibility. Yu Hao exploits this by making grand claims (e.g., "reaching a trillion yuan in revenue by 2028"), knowing that by the time problems arise, he will no longer be in charge.

4. The Clash of VC and Government Logics

Government investments in tech projects are doomed to fail because their approaches are fundamentally incompatible:

• VC Logic: VC investors are willing to take high risks (e.g., investing in ByteDance with 10 projects, hoping one will succeed) in pursuit of high returns.
• Government Logic: Governments prioritize stability and avoid losses. Their funds are subject to audits, and failing to invest in 10 projects could harm their careers. Therefore, they opt for projects with appealing narratives that don't require actual technological development but meet performance targets.
• The Result of This Mismatch: Entrepreneurs like Yu Hao exploit this gap by focusing on policies and officials' KPIs, using buzzwords like "trillion-dollar industries" to secure government funding without providing tangible products.

5. The Evolution of Profiteers: From the Elderly to County Governments

Yu Hao is not the first in this game. Chinese business history is a history of different types of profiteers:

• 1990s: Health product entrepreneurs exploited elderly consumers' fears of illness.
• 2000s: P2P and financial schemes preyed on investors' anxiety about quick wealth.
• 2010s: Jia Yueting used misleading PPTs to raise funds for his "ecosystemic transformation" ventures.
• 2020s: Yu Hao targets county governments, which offer easier access to funding with less accountability. The core strategy remains the same: exploiting people's fears (illness, poverty, inaction).

As long as these anxieties persist, the cycle of exploitation will continue.

This news report exposes the illusion of "high-tech entrepreneurship" and highlights the challenges faced by county economies—local governments are eager to develop but lack viable options, while entrepreneurs seek funding through misleading strategies, leading to a waste of resources. The real question is: how can we create better projects for counties and make government investment decisions more rational, preventing them from becoming targets for profiteers?