By Verne Harnish “Growth Guy”

One of India’s wealthiest business leaders, Anil Ambani, invests $325 million in Steven Spielberg’s movie studio DreamWorks – something unimaginable just five years ago.  In turn, Warren Buffett invests $230 million for a 10% stake in Chinese electric car manufacturer BYD, the same investor who shunned technology investments earlier this decade.  It’s obvious the top entrepreneurs and investors understand that India and China are the future of our global economy.  Do you?

With over 1 billion people moving into the middle class, effectively increasing the global market for products and services by 50% over the next decade, can your firm afford to ignore the single largest market opportunity in the history of business?   It’s time you consider “going east” as part of your 2010 strategic plan.  And it’s as critical for small to mid-size firms to make the move as it is for top investors and large corporations.

Made It In China

Two entrepreneurs helping others make the leap are Graham Jeal and Simon Cann, authors of a new book series entitled Made It In….  Graham, a British-born entrepreneur who has been building companies in China since 2001, is the former president of the Entrepreneurs’ Organization (EO) chapter in China.  Cann, a prolific writer, has been a management consultant to companies spanning the music, entertainment, and broadcast industries.

I met Graham and Simon on my last trip to China and was impressed by their enthusiasm and initiative to encourage others to leave the comfort zone of their own markets and venture out into some of the leading business hotspots around the globe.

In their first book, Made It In China, they feature specific lessons learned from nine entrepreneurs including Graham, who have built manufacturing plants, launched internet businesses, started hotels and restaurants, and created large sales organizations within China.  One of the entrepreneurs was even the first foreign participant on China’s equivalent of “The Apprentice.”  In all cases, these entrepreneurs left their home countries and built businesses in a culture different from the own – and their stories are both inspirational and instructive.

Other countries in the series include Vietnam, Russia, and Kazakhstan with more in the works.  I encourage you to go to their website www.MadeItIn.com to learn more.

Coming with Quality

Another must read book for growth firms wanting to dominate their industry is Hermann Simon’s Hidden Champions of the 21^st Century. I was speaking with Hermann Simon upon his recent return from China.  He brought news that Chinese firms are focused on building competing quality products that will challenge even Germany’s lead in many export areas – and that they are building factories in Germany and the U.S. and other parts of the world.  They want to get “in our backyards” before we get in theirs!  And with over $2 trillion in surplus cash vs. a projected U.S. 2010 $14 trillion deficit, they have the financial muscle to do it.

No longer will the “Made in China” label mean low cost or low quality.  Their entrepreneurs are hungry to learn from the best and bring their business models, products, and services to other countries.

India is aiming for the same upgrade to their brand.  Seen primarily as a cheap supplier of back office functions, they are building global brands and bringing their products, like the $2500 Nano car, to the developed world.   And with one of the youngest populations in the world, India is well poised to incubate entrepreneurs that will be hungry to get into other markets.  Again, it will be crucial for established businesses to plan their India strategy for next year and beyond.

Wholly Owned Subsidiaries

Hermann Simon notes, based on his research of the world’s top mid-market companies, that they almost always set-up wholly owned subsidiaries vs. licensing or joint venture relationships.  It’s been critical for these firms to control their brands and have their own people “on the ground” in other countries.  And they tended to expand into one or two different countries each year, with many now having operations in over 50 countries.

When these “hidden champions” are asked which countries they’re focused on for the next decade, it is India and China.  And while it might be too late for manufacturers outside these countries to make inroads as quickly, the customer service models and cultures of the west will not be easy to imitate by the eastern entrepreneurs.  This is the distinct advantage, plus a long history of good management practices, that entrepreneurs in the west have as they pursue these eastern markets.

Read the two books mentioned above and make 2010 the year you focus on the east.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

A new study says rising mainland wages and higher shipping costs, among other things, make Mexico a better choice for manufacturing

By Pete Engardio

As purchasing manager for the North American arm of Japanese auto supplier Takata, Fred Heegan used to feel pressure to shift manufacturing to China. But when a customer pointed to a lower-priced Chinese part, Heegan would talk about the added challenges of quality, logistics, and engineering changes. “There are significant hidden costs to having supply lines that extend to China,” says Heegan, whose company manufactures auto parts in the U.S. and Mexico.

Heegan now looks like a visionary. A growing number of companies are moving beyond the usual considerations of labor and raw material costs in deciding where to produce goods to calculate the “total cost of ownership.” That means tallying expenses associated with things such as storage and delays. By this light, the so-called China price, which always seemed to be at least 40% below U.S. costs on everything from bedroom furniture to telecom gear, isn’t so low. In fact, China’s once-formidable edge in manufacturing has all but disappeared in some industries, according to a new study by Southfield (Mich.) firm AlixPartners, which researches and consults on outsourcing.

AlixPartners studied five categories of machined products, ranging from large engine parts requiring significant labor to small plastic components that need little. The cost shift has been dramatic. In 2005, AlixPartners found that by the time the items had arrived at a U.S. port, Chinese-made parts were 22% cheaper on average than those produced in the U.S. By the end of 2008, however, the average price gap had dropped to 5.5%, which often isn’t large enough to merit the hassle of manufacturing halfway around the world.

Even more surprising is the cost comparison with Mexico. While the total cost of making goods in China was about 5% cheaper than in Mexico three years ago, manufacturing in China now is about 20% more expensive. Compared with the U.S., the savings in Mexico have widened to 25%, from 16%. “A couple of years ago outsourcing to China was a no-brainer,” says Stephen T. Maurer, AlixPartners’ managing director. No longer, he says.

The biggest factors behind the sharp shift are currency fluctuations and labor costs. The yuan has appreciated by around 11% against the dollar since late 2005, and wages have risen 7% to 8% a year. To rein in polluting industries, furthermore, Beijing has stripped away tax breaks for exporters of some heavy industrial products.

That said, China’s manufacturing advantages remain formidable. With factory wages averaging $1.26 an hour, the mainland is still hard to beat for labor-intensive products such as toys and apparel. China is also rising fast in industries like solar power modules and cars, thanks to strong domestic demand and generous government incentives.

Even with its eroding price advantages, China has retained its unrivaled supply base of parts and materials in some industries. It remains the king of consumer-electronics and PC manufacturing. “What makes this industry sticky is that the entire supply chain is now in Asia,” says Michael Andrade, North America manager for Celestica (CLS), an electronics contract manufacturer based in Toronto. Transplanting that ecosystem to North America would take years.

And because of the recession, consultants say, most U.S. manufacturers are holding off on major moves right now. Whatever they can save by moving production may not be worth the cost and effort of relocating a modern, efficient plant with experienced managers and well-trained workers. Besides, says Maurer, “You don’t want to shift everything to Mexico—and then see the yuan drop like a stone, making China cheap again.”

Still, the reassessment of costs seems to have halted the herd mentality that drove many U.S. companies to China 5 to 10 years ago for what have turned out to be marginal gains. “A lot of work that went from Mexico to China probably shouldn’t have,” Maurer says. Production of high-end electronics, such as telecom switches and computer servers, is starting to return to the Americas so that supplies can be closer to U.S. customers, says Celestica’s Andrade. Another variable is the cost of repairing and replacing defective equipment, which can be surprisingly high for complex electronic items.

The growing need for lean inventories also puts China at a disadvantage. Goods take 45 days on average to reach U.S. shores. With the recession making it more difficult to predict demand, manufacturers are being forced to stash unsold products in warehouses for longer periods. And the cost of meeting emergency supply needs is inevitably higher in China, from air cargo charges to premium trucking rates.

Such factors reinforce the belief of Takata’s Heegan that it is better to buy parts closer to where final assembly happens. He cites the example of automotive wire harnesses, insulated bundles of electrical conductors that can cost $1 apiece and are churned out by the millions.

Heegan says he might be able to buy a harness from China for 15% less than in Mexico. But if a design is altered after a batch of Chinese-made harnesses is already on the boat from Shanghai, the company has to foot the bill for up to six weeks of shipping and handling of obsolete parts. And there are the complications of time zones, language barriers, and travel times. An English-speaking Mexican supplier can be at a U.S. plant within hours.

BUSINESS EXCHANGE: READ, SAVE, AND ADD CONTENT ON BW’S NEW WEB 2.0 TOPIC NETWORK
Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
Cost is usually the major driver in a company’s decision to purchase parts and products from abroad. Yet in a 2008 Pricewaterhouse-Coopers survey of retail and consumer-goods companies, one-quarter of respondents said they could not quantify actual savings. Many tracked transportation, customs, and warehousing costs. But quality and reliability of vendors often went unmeasured.

To view the survey, go to http://bx.businessweek.com/supply-chain-management/reference/

Engardio is an international senior writer for BusinessWeek .

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Sarah Lacy on June 1, 2009

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/why-china-isn%E2%80%99t-%E2%80%9Cthe-next-silicon-valley%E2%80%9D/

Since I got home from China last week, I’ve found myself in a lot of conversations where phrases like “the next Silicon Valley,” or “just like Silicon Valley used to be,” keep coming up. But while China is swimming in capital and littered with start-ups, I’m going to argue it’s not the next Silicon Valley. In fact, it’s something far different than I’ve ever seen before.

If you think about it, Silicon Valley doesn’t really move as fast as people say it does. Sure, the rest of the U.S. business world may feel out-lapped by the pattern of companies going from nothing to billions in a few years, but those start-ups are mostly the outliers. For every wunderkind smirking on the cover of a magazine, there are far more entrepreneurs who slogged away for thirty years before ever getting their Nasdaq moments. And there are even more who slogged away for longer and didn’t.

And even the breakout Googles and Facebooks of the Valley had the clear benefit of building their companies on top of decades of infrastructure build-out. I mean “infrastructure” in the sense of technology infrastructure—the chips, routers, open source stack, etc.— but I also mean it in the sense of Valley infrastructure that makes it possible to come up with an idea at breakfast and have a company by noon. It’s taken decades of continual boom-and-bust cycles to create the complex fabric of venture capitalists, angel investors, lawyers, term sheets, accounting methods and best practices that a newby entrepreneur waltzing in the Valley today has the luxury of taking for granted.

What makes China so staggering is that everything that happened to corporate America over decades—think the television and media studios build out of the 1950s, the greed of the 1980s, the dot com bubble, the build out of physical and IT infrastructure, current Web 2.0 and CleanTech innovation—is all happening to China at once.

Imagine: At the same time eCommerce is getting sea legs, TV Home Shopping is also getting hot. Online ads are growing not because people are TiVoing through commercials—both TV and online ads are growth markets at the same time. Ditto for entertainment and piracy: While Hollywood sees the Internet as a threat to its cozy legacy business, China’s entertainment industry is just now building amid a world where piracy is already rampant. No one assumes anyone will buy a CD, so they just look for other ways to make money. The wonder of China right now isn’t just the size of the market. It’s the rate at which dozens of “old” and “new” economies are all maturing amid one another, and the hyper-network effects that such economic progress is having throughout the country.

As for China’s start-up ecosystem , it’s working to build its own Valley-like infrastructure, but it doesn’t have the luxury of growing it steadily over several decades. Experts say there’s at least $20 billion in venture capital sloshing around the country right now. It’s probably double that if you count angels and unofficial or very local funds, says Rocky Lee of DLA Piper, a law firm that represents much of that venture money in China.

That’s why calling China merely “the next Silicon Valley” misses the singularity of what’s happening there. The Valley has never been like this, and I don’t say that to knock the Valley. In many ways,  our steady development has been healthier. But it’s also a lot less electric. In the next ten years or so way more money will be lost amid the China chaos, but I’m betting way more money will be made too.

It reminds me of the distinction between start-ups who develop products in “parallel” and those who develop them in “serial.” In the former, you raise a bunch of money, hire an army of coders and develop your whole vision at once. In the latter, you build one product, prove that one works and can make money, then raise more money to develop a second. Typically in a time of economic plenty and investor froth everyone pushes for parallel. When the funding and revenues get tight, the serial approach comes into vogue. Parallel is always more exciting; serial is always more rational.

Silicon Valley tends to develop start-ups in “serial waves,” if you will. There are always outliers and waves can coincide in timing like CleanTech and Web 2.0 did, but investors and entrepreneurs tend to jump on dominant high-growth bandwagons and ride them until a few billion companies come out of them and many more fail. Then they wait for the next wagon.

China, as a country, is developing in parallel. The wagons are running constantly and going in nearly every direction. It’s a time of chaos that can burn people out, but it’s also one so unique in the history of modern economics that many ambitious people can’t ignore it. That’s why most transplants from the West who survive their first two years in China tend to stay for more than ten.

Given all this, China is a lot more inwardly focused than other places like Israel and Europe where start-ups have to be global from day one to have a big enough addressable market. When it comes to the Web and mobile, the biggest surprises will likely come from local, non-English speaking entrepreneurs, maybe even those outside the largest cities. They probably don’t read TechCrunch and may not even know where Silicon Valley is on a map. But that won’t matter, because their local market will necessarily develop very differently than ours.

And while China gets a rap for ripping off U.S. Web start-ups now, I think we’re going to start seeing U.S. start-ups copying a lot of elements of Chinese entrepreneurs’ business plans, whether it’s unlocking the value in virtual goods, experimenting with alternative online payment methods or developing more social forms of e-commerce, where like-minded friends shop together.

You always find the best ideas within atmospheres of constraints. It’s why some of the best companies are started during recessions. It’s why Israel was such a surprising hot-bed for Nasdaq IPOs in the late 1990s. And it’s why Chinese Web companies have come up with other ways of making money than just slapping ads on a site, because they had to.

I’ll be going back to China in October, and I’m learning Mandarin in the meantime. Because odds are the next great grinning Web coverboy may not speak English. (And for the commenters who keep complaining that India isn’t getting enough TechCrunch love, calm down! I’ll be there most of November.)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

India and China aren’t just attracting entrepreneurs who are returning from overseas, but also venture capitalists. At a recent Quality of Management panel discussion at INSEAD’s Asia campus in Singapore, Chan Tze Hoe, investment manager with CAP Vista in Singapore, said that as markets grow in both countries, people who were born there but then educated in the West are “coming back to join the scene.”

He noted that Asia is seeing a transition to venture capital-backed businesses from home-grown ones. Speaking about the regulatory framework and environment for venture capital, he said that while this is well developed in the the US and Europe, it has only emerged in the past ten years in India and China.
Understand the culture

Shanghai photo
©iStockphoto.com/Robert Churchill

Chan said that, regarding China, it’s important to understand the culture and build up a network: “A VC fund, previously based in London, was trying to set up a China office. They’ve actually set up their presence there for two years but haven’t invested in a single deal … They told me they are taking a watch-and-see attitude. When you want to start up a business in China, you really need to build up your contacts and find someone who is familiar with the environment to partner with you to achieve some sort of success.”

Chan says that most of the active investors have been in China for some time: “You probably need a lot of local knowledge (in terms of business culture, local language, deal sources, regulatory framework and government/industry networks) to source … deals that are not only right … but also where the business can grow or lead even with potentially undiscovered limitations/conditions. It is unlike Silicon Valley where the industry is well developed and structured so that information generally flows quite quickly among the few top VC shops.”

Chan told Knowledge: “China, in my opinion, is building up such a system of deal flows – not just in VC but also gradually in private equity … Having said that, I personally do not think one can force-fit Silicon Valley’s style of venture capital on the Chinese model, since investment success is very much driven by the people on the ground and when the cultures are different, rules have to be set differently.”
Taking a wait-and-see approach

Chan said that most foreign VCs are still adopting a wait-and-see attitude regarding China, although the advantage of having a local partner is that the initial deal sourcing process is generally accelerated: “The question is whether these foreign VCs can use the same business principles (investment culture/methodology, corporate governance practices) in the Chinese context.”

Phil Anderson, Professor of Entrepreneurship, who hosted the Quality of Management panel discussion, points out that many Western VCs are opening offices in China to help their portfolio companies – not to do deals as such – and these are taking time to learn about the region before raising funds to invest in mainland companies.
Geographical ‘nuances’

India flag
©iStockphoto.com/Aravind Teki

Another speaker at the Quality of Management session, Jayesh Parekh of Sony Entertainment Television and MobiApps, advises venture capitalists to spend a lot of time in India and China. He says he has VC friends who go to India twice a year but that’s “not sufficient to discover” that country. As for geographic location, “each one has a nuance.” The West and North of India, he says, are more entrepreneurial, while in the more risk averse South and East, you’ll find “a lot of loyalty and excellent skills, especially for technology, so it depends on what kind of start-up you want to do.”

However, he adds that companies are finding it difficult to attract talent with share options in places like Bangalore, as most people want to work “for a stable, major corporation that pays good salary and perks, rather than take the risk with start-ups. Hence share options do not really help in attracting good talent. Given a choice between more money or upside with share options, most professionals will chose cash.”
Private equity is ‘developing rapidly’

Parekh told Knowledge that venture capital firms in India are mostly interested in retail, real estate, information techology/business process outsourcing/call centre and services, rather than high-tech or intellectual property-related businesses. “I think the private equity (rather than VC) scene is developing rapidly in India. Both locals and foreigners are getting involved, and in some cases foreign VCs are partnering with locals as well. I think the time is excellent for VCs to go into India,” he says.

Harish Parameswar, Managing Director of financial advisory and asset management firm Lazard Asia, echoes Parekh’s views about private equity in India: “I would say you’ve seen a lot of private equity and buy-out firms come up in India but venture capital is relatively tough if you’re at an early stage, unless you have some Indian investors who are from (Silicon) Valley. It’s relatively difficult to get early stage financing.”
The Indian networking advantage

Parameswar told Knowledge that Indian venture capitalists have an edge over their Chinese counterparts in terms of networking in the United States: “If you look at the Silicon Valley Indians, they set up this organization called TiE (The Indus Entrepreneurs, also known as Talent Ideas and Enterprise). This is a very, very influential organization, which is primarily run by successful Indian entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley.” The organisation helps VCs meet prospective companies, Parameswar says. “I would say the Indians have had a bit of an advantage over Chinese companies on that front. It’s more organised, I would say.”

Silicon Valley companies have been looking at India as an outsourcing development centre, Parameswar says, with “almost every start-up in the Valley” having back-end offices in India. “So when it comes to technology development, because of language and skillsets, India seems to be the preferred option. But when it comes to manufacturing and production, China still has the edge on that front.”

He adds the biggest difference between Indian and Chinese VCs has been that many of the companies that were set up in India have been developing technologies for the global markets rather than for the domestic market. “In China the market has been pretty much geared to the domestic market and that’s been a huge, huge plus, because a lot of these companies are able to get revenue traction without having to spend as much money.”

Consequently, China has been able to attract a lot more venture capital than India, he says: “Because of the domestic market, (companies) have managed to scale much more rapidly and therefore venture capitalists exit much faster as well.”

Profiles

Chan Tze Hoe is an investment manager in Cap Vista who focuses on analysing and executing investments across various technology sectors. His professional interests include strategic investments, valuation and corporate strategy.

Prior to joining Cap Vista, he was a researcher with DSO National Laboratories and was involved in various multi-million dollar R&D projects at its Guided Systems Division.

CAP Vista, the venture investment arm of the Defence Science & Technology Agency in Singapore, aims to “identify and execute strategic investments in early-stage, high-tech companies to serve Singapore’s defence initiatives.”

Jayesh Parekh is a founder and director of MobiApps, a Singapore-based technology company and is also a founder and director of Sony Entertainment Television, a major cable & satellite television channel launched in collaboration with Sony Pictures Entertainment (Columbia/Tristar).

Prior to those ventures, he spent 13 years at IBM in various positions based out of Houston, Texas in USA and in Singapore, where he was involved in technical, sales and marketing roles. He is an angel investor, with investments in venture capital funds in Silicon Valley and India.

Harish Parameswar, Managing Director of Lazard Asia, has been overseeing the expansion of the firm’s Southeast Asia advisory business and also covers the technology and media sectors across Asia for Lazard. Before joining Lazard, he was the founder and Managing Director of Beacon Advisory, a boutique Asian advisory firm, and has also worked for Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan/Jardine Fleming in various corporate finance roles in Asia.

The views expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the individuals concerned and do not reflect those of their employers or their portfolio companies.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

With the rest of the world beating a path to India and China to cash in on the rapid economic growth in those countries and tap low-cost manufacturing (China) and services (India), countless business opportunities have opened up.

As INSEAD Affiliate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise Patrick Turner explains, this has attracted two groups of entrepreneurs: local residents who are eager to launch companies of their own; and entrepreneurs from overseas, often from the US, who see new opportunities emerging back home. The latter comprises the returning diaspora – people who left their native country to study abroad and seek greater opportunities elsewhere, but who are now interested in returning home, bringing with them the education, experience and, often, personal wealth they have acquired overseas. The combination of these two groups represents a potentially powerful teaming up of ideas, experience and funding that is already resulting in success stories.
Different paths

In this respect, the situation in both China and India is very similar, although Turner says the pattern of entrepreneurship development in the two countries is very different. “Historically, both countries have had a very strong entrepreneurial record. Wherever the Indians have tended to go – in the UK or, earlier than that, in East Africa – they have tended to start their own businesses. And as far as the Chinese are concerned there are a lot businesses in the SME (small and medium-sized enterprise) fabric in today’s Malaysia or today’s Singapore for instance, which were formed by the immigrant Chinese when they first came here (to Singapore) a couple of generations ago.”

“But there’s been a difference in the development of both countries which has been absolutely crucial in the development of entrepreneurship, and that has been the Communist era in China in which, among a lot of other things, the development of personal capital, private initiative and private enterprise was essentially frowned upon and that epoch never happened in India,” he says.
China flag

Although both countries have traditionally produced entrepreneurs, the political campaigns initiated by the Chinese Communist Party, especially in the 50s and 60s, with its shunning of personal wealth creation and private enterprise, disrupted the flow of entrepreneurs. It is only since the introduction of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms in the early 80s, that China has gradually developed a private sector.

Consequently, Turner adds: “In China they have been reinventing a capitalist, entrepreneurial venture system over the past 20-25 years, whereas in India they have just gone sailing forward on the crest of the wave formed by the opportunities from business process outsourcing and the IT boom.”
Entrepreneurial activity

Even in the early part of this decade, the degree of entrepreneurship activity – as measured by the number of people engaged in new and early stage ventures – did not progress nearly as quickly in China as in India. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor’s report for 2003 – the most recent statistics available for India – 12.5 per cent of the total Indian working population was involved in opportunity-based ventures, whereas in China the figure was about half that at 5.5 per cent. Furthermore, while on trips to India, Turner says the young Indians he has met there seem to have “some grasp, if very incomplete, of what is involved in launching a new venture, whereas the young Chinese aspiring entrepreneurs I come into contact with seem to be much further back in this respect.”

This may, in large part, be because of the entrepreneurship environment in the two countries, Turner says: “You are more likely to become an entrepreneur if someone in your environment is, or has been one – your father for instance, or some other family member.” However beyond the family, a strong entrepreneurial community – such as the home town or cluster of towns in the home area – might also encourage some to turn to entrepreneurship. “It’s a matter of entrepreneurship appearing to you in those you see around you as a perfectly normal and widely practiced way of pursuing a career,” Turner explains.
Icons and networks

It also helps if your country has ‘icon’ entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates in the US or Sir Richard Branson in the UK. India certainly has some, of whom the best known is Narayana Murthy, co-founder of Infosys.
Narayana Murthy
In China, however, there are no ‘icon’ entrepreneurs or role models, although entrepreneurs have been gaining greater prominence through Forbes magazine’s list of the country’s 50 richest entrepreneurs.

India has an additional advantage over China in terms of entrepreneurship-oriented bodies such as the TiE network (The Indus Entrepreneurs) or Wadhwani Foundation, which seek to promote entrepreneurship by, among other things, organising workshops and seminars nationally. Founded by entrepreneur Romesh Wadhwani, the foundation funds various entrepreneurship education-related projects like the National Entrepreneurship Network (NEN), which brings together prestigious Indian higher education institutions and entrepreneurs.

Turner says nothing even remotely like this exists in China. However, that said, he expects India to lose this edge in the coming decade. With the emergence of companies such as Alibaba.com, which was founded by entrepreneur Jack Ma in 1999 – and in which Yahoo! took a 40 per cent stake for one billion usd in 2005 – China is already to starting produce its own iconic role models. It will then be just a short step to creating entrepreneurship support organisations, possibly financed by successful entrepreneurs of the new generation. Consequently both phenomena are likely to speed up entrepreneurship development in China and erase the advantage India currently enjoys.

By INSEAD

Bookmark It

Hide Sites