Peter Alexander – Managing Director, Z-Ben Advisors

It is hard to truly comprehend that a full decade has passed since we launched the annual Z-Ben Advisors’ China Rankings. Milestones like this are a perfect time to reflect, so with that in mind, I thought it would be a bit of fun to provide a behind-the-scenes look while also explaining how the Rankings – despite their intent – ultimately (and wildly) missed the intended objective. 

The Failed Brilliance

The concept behind the launch of the annual Rankings back in 2016 was very straightforward:  we were constantly being asked by clients and non-clients alike which global managers were the “most successful” in China. While we had our instincts, we believed that to best answer this question required the application of an objective, data-driven model. 

There was also a secondary goal. 

Taking a page from the consulting industry playbook, we saw an opportunity to develop the annual Rankings into a platform that could be used to drive business development. Our thinking went along the following lines: we’d come out with the annual Rankings and those global managers either placed lower in the league table, or out of the top 25 altogether, would reach out and inquire as to why this would be the case. The initial interaction would be followed by formal engagement and a strategic assessment, which would conclude with a series of recommendations. It made perfect sense. I recall my giddiness at the time saying, “how could this possibly not work?!”

The Reality Check

Well, not only did the China Rankings fail to drive business development – not a single global firm pursued that path – but it has also ended up having the opposite effect.

Year after year, what we would receive were numerous strongly worded emails demanding explanations. Ironically, these demands came from the very firms we expected to seek out our advice. They had zero appetite in pursuing an objective and systematic evaluation of their China business. Instead, we were hauled off to defend the outcomes against complaints that the modeling didn’t consider “non-public” information. Their main concern? Understanding exactly why they ranked where they did – so they could prepare internal reports for corporate leadership, who were, predictably, outraged.

We began referring to this post-release period as our “Spanish Inquisition”. Yet, despite the sharp criticism, we still viewed the China Rankings to be of real value and made the decision to continue plugging away. 

(Foreword continues in full China Rankings report).