I suspect that the business development team may be facing these challenges:

Are corporate "needs" becoming increasingly "customized"?

Are companies becoming more “demanding” in their comparisons?

Are companies becoming more hesitant to sign contracts?

Where should I begin?

As usual, let’s start at the front lines of investment promotion, where the action is.

Corporate “Needs”: Don’t Talk Yourself Into a Corner

During the investment promotion process, even when we’re results-oriented and genuinely want to bring a project to fruition, things often fall through after just a few rounds of discussion.

Earlier, I met with a lithium-battery company from Anhui that was considering a site in Southwest China.

At the time, the industrial park was under construction and was scheduled for topping-out and handover this June.

The most memorable line from our first meeting was: “If the facility isn’t suitable, there’s no point in continuing the discussion…”

One piece of equipment is 77 meters long; factoring in the required clearance space at both ends, the factory building would need to be over 80 meters long. Furthermore, the layout of the elevator shafts and loading docks could only be clearly understood by reviewing the CAD drawings.

So, the investment promoter projected the layouts of two factory buildings onto a screen, and they generally met the company’s requirements. Subsequently, the company requested a hazardous materials warehouse—200 square meters in size, located 150 meters from the workshop.

Beyond that, recruitment, assembly, and logistics… all were part of the company’s considerations.

Is it a matter of “customized” corporate needs, or “mismatched” infrastructure?

From the company’s perspective, investing real money in a local area—especially given the convergence of government tax and land policies—it makes perfect sense to simply state their non-negotiable requirements.

However, from the government’s perspective on attracting investment, the goal is to identify comparative advantages and facilitate the establishment of high-quality projects. Naturally, the greatest concern is that if a project fails to materialize, it could result in a financial loss.

In reality, when it comes to facility development—from standardized to customized industrial buildings—this shift represents not only a change in philosophy but also an adaptation to the dynamic market environment and industrial transformation.

Standardized factory buildings are typically designed with uniform ceiling heights, widths, and load-bearing capacities. While this makes construction relatively simple, it fails to meet the specific needs of manufacturing enterprises.

When moving in, some companies often have to undertake secondary renovations based on their own needs, resulting in significant waste of manpower, material resources, and time.

Success in any endeavor isn’t achieved simply by covering all bases; doing so merely ensures a passing grade. To achieve excellence, one must go above and beyond what others do.

There is more than one factor influencing the success or failure of investment promotion. A single phone call, a single report, or a single approach to problem-solving can lead to the government and investors raising their glasses in celebration. Equally, it can render all the preliminary efforts in investment promotion futile.

Business "Comparisons": Avoid Getting Stuck in a Deadlock

These days, we often see headlines like: “A certain company has secured XXX billion yuan in investment from a local government.”

It’s unclear when this trend began, but there are always news reports that blur the lines between fact and fiction. Such reports directly lead companies to believe that they, too, could be the next recipients of investment.

When companies approach local governments under the guise of seeking investment, they often find that discussions about funding typically lead to one of two scenarios:

Support such as renovation subsidies and equipment grants is negotiable and subject to discussion.

However, when it comes to financing needs or support from industrial funds, they remain cautious and hesitant.

Taking the lithium battery company mentioned earlier as an example, they compare various subsidies and financing options with those in Anhui. After discussing the matter, if they find the policy support insufficient, they’ll suggest setting up operations nearby in Jiangsu instead, claiming it would save costs.

When it comes to investment promotion, very few companies that constantly pester the government for policies actually have the financial clout.

A certain locality may have poured tens or even hundreds of billions of yuan into attracting investment, only to end up with stalled production, laid-off employees, and capital flight.

In the end, it’s a complete mess—who will foot the bill?

More importantly, the government must bear the risks in projects where it participates in co-financing.

For example, some companies and local governments collaborate on projects. The government provides co-financing, but after a year or so, the project goes bankrupt.

Undeniably, “industrial funds” have become the “trendsetters” in investment promotion, gradually gaining recognition and importance among local governments.

As an innovative model for attracting investment, local governments are exploring new pathways of “attracting investment through investment.” Most cities are eager to get started, leaving no stone unturned, and have become as adept as “investment bankers.”

However, successful investment attraction cases also prompt new reflections among local governments.

Why is it that, despite using industrial funds and investing heavily to attract investment, not all regions achieve leapfrog development?

Whether it is the fund model or capital injection, addressing only funding or investment structure issues is merely a tool for investment promotion.

What matters most is a city’s industrial positioning during the investment attraction process—and the synergy of multiple factors such as transportation, resources, and the business environment.

In this process, revitalizing a region’s industrial economy does not rely on a financial model derived from the investment promotion sector, but is rooted in the characteristics of local industries. Attracting investment based on “need” requires both selecting compatible industries and cultivating core technological capabilities, thereby achieving a virtuous cycle.

Don’t Let Corporate “Signings” Become Merely a Fallback Option

When selecting a location, companies generally adopt a strategy of “casting a wide net, gathering many options, and choosing the best one.”

In the early stages of investment negotiations, when a company presents high demands, identifying the core of its needs is crucial.

Beyond methodology, timing is equally crucial; seizing key milestones in the project’s progression is essential. For instance, initial negotiations, in-depth site visits, and permit processing services are moments where a connection with the company is most likely to be established.

Indeed, often if you aren’t proactive, you miss opportunities; yet if you’re too proactive, you risk becoming a “backup option.” Ultimately, sometimes “overzealous investment promotion” cannot overcome the harsh reality of inadequate infrastructure or the capricious nature of corporate decision-making.

Consequently, even after a company has “signed a contract” with a local government, it may still “have one foot in the door while eyeing another opportunity.” The moment a more lucrative opportunity arises, the company will immediately “walk away.”

As long as the investing enterprise possesses genuine strength and determination, local authorities should first identify the core strengths of the enterprise itself, then trace the connections to gather the enterprise’s industrial support ecosystem. This approach allows for a more targeted “tracking” of the direction of the next “vine.”

In today’s market economy, the economic development of any enterprise is inseparable from its supporting industrial chain. The finer the division of labor within the industrial chain, the greater the value added, and the longer the chain becomes.

As market competition intensifies, only by linking related enterprises more closely can a synergistic force be formed. Consequently, the industrial agglomeration effect emerges.

Dell once proposed the “983” requirement. What does “983” mean? It means that 98% of orders must be delivered within three days. Without a tightly integrated network of suppliers, this would be impossible to achieve.

It is clear that only by overcoming geographical constraints and bringing together enterprises engaged in production along the same industrial chain can an industrial cluster have a chance to stand the test of time.

When making investments, most companies typically start with a small initial investment to test the waters—a common strategy for risk management.

If local authorities fail to take these small investments seriously—or mistakenly assume these companies do not value the local area—they will miss out on attracting the “big fish” that follow.