Both paths of digitalization lead to bC integration. One path is the B2C route: C2C (Taobao) → B2C (Tmall) → F2C (Private Domain 1.0) → F+b2C (Private Domain 2.0) → F2B2b+b2C (Private Domain 3.0). This is the evolution of 2C digitalization. Among these, Private Domain 2.0 is key. 2C previously emphasized disintermediation, but Private Domain 2.0 precisely introduces intermediaries (b-end), solving the problem that Private Domain 1.0 couldn't scale. Private domain no longer emphasizes disintermediation; this is a turning point. The other path is the B2B route: F2B → F2B2b (deep distribution digitalization) → B2b2C (community group buying) → F2B2b+b2C. Among these, community group buying is key. It connects the channel supply chain with users, finally linking the B-end and C-end. Both digitalization paths ultimately reach the key node of digitalization: b2C. This is bC integration. bC integration means that the key point of digitalization is solving the connection between stores and users. bC integration is not about disintermediation but strengthening intermediaries, emphasizing the retail end's value in traffic generation. bC integration is currently hot, manifested in four aspects: First, the concept is hot. Everyone is talking about bC integration; it seems that not talking about it means falling behind in digitalization. Second, technical routes are hot. Digital system companies are developing corresponding software systems, and WeChat Work's entry into bC integration has added to the heat. Third, benchmark cases have emerged. Private Domain 2.0 performs well in direct-operated chain enterprises. Distribution-type enterprises such as Yanghe, Coca-Cola, and Huabin also perform well. Fourth, a group of trainers is emerging. Trainers are also important for promoting something. The time for large-scale promotion of bC integration has not yet arrived, mainly because the underlying logic of bC integration has not yet formed. The underlying logic of bC integration must solve two problems: first, online-offline integration; second, the logic of traffic-based channel profit distribution. What does online-offline integration mean? It means that traffic can be directed from offline to online, and also from online to offline. These are two different scenarios. Channel distribution enterprises can now direct traffic from online to offline. The specific practice is usually: manufacturers (distributors) use LBS technology to direct users to specific b-end, empowering the b-end. Of course, the premise is that manufacturers (distributors) have online traffic, i.e., they have their own private domain. This is the first form of private domain transfer. Directing traffic from offline to online means that a retail store's traffic can be directed to online (the store's online shelf). If the store doesn't have the product offline, the manufacturer (distributor) and user can transact, as in community group buying. This is the second form of private domain transfer. The greatest value of this private domain transfer is achieving "small store, big operations." So, although stores are the main traffic generators in bC integration, they are also the biggest beneficiaries. The two forms of private domain transfer achieve two-way empowerment. Compared to the one-way empowerment of platform e-commerce, two-way empowerment creates interdependence and is more stable. There are two areas where bC integration is currently doing well: First, Private Domain 2.0 performs well in marketing chain types. For example, local service types (catering, entertainment, etc.), retail chain types (Watsons, Pagoda, Qian Da Ma, etc.), short-chain channel brands (shoes, clothing, luxury goods, etc.), and manufacturing types (directly connecting external suppliers) all have outstanding performance. In direct-operated chains, because brand owners and stores have aligned interests, stores confidently generate traffic, and there is no conflict in channel profit distribution. Second, manufacturers direct traffic to stores. As long as stores achieve sales, channel profit distribution is resolved within the existing system. The main channel system for FMCG is the distribution system, which differs from direct-operated chains. Therefore, the core of online-offline integration is reshaping the channel profit distribution system, from channel transaction profit distribution to channel traffic profit distribution. Profit distribution means the allocation of channel profits. Let's first talk about the traditional channel profit distribution logic. The traditional channel roughly has three operating entities: manufacturer (F) → distributor (B) → retail store (b) → user (C). How are channel profits formed? They are formed through transactions. When manufacturers transact with distributors, manufacturers have gross profit; when distributors transact with retail stores, distributors have gross profit; when retail stores transact with users, retail stores have gross profit. Profits are formed through transactions. Now let's look at how community group buying distributes profits. The "group leader" is responsible for traffic generation, and the profit is returned to the "group leader" by the platform. The profit returned by the platform to the "group leader" is determined by the platform because the "group leader" has no price decision power, hence no profit decision power. Therefore, there can be conflicts between the platform and the "group leader," which is a conflict in profit distribution logic. bC integration under the distribution channel is the F2B2b2C model. The b-end is the traffic generator, and the private domain is at the b-end. Then the three parties share the C-end. bC integration has two major transaction scenarios: one is offline transactions, which still involve transaction profits; the other is online shelf transactions. A small store might have only 3 SKUs offline for a certain brand, but 30 SKUs online. If a user orders an online SKU (not available offline), it might be delivered by the manufacturer (F) (central warehouse delivery) or by the distributor (B) (front warehouse delivery). So, how are profits allocated? If following the past transaction profit logic, the manufacturer or distributor should get the profit. If that were really done, why would the retail end generate traffic for the manufacturer and distributor? The difficulty in promoting Private Domain 1.0 is that manufacturers only want retail stores to generate traffic but cannot guarantee profits. Some people complain: Why don't distributors and retail stores let us add users? Grabbing users and traffic is grabbing profits. Without solving the channel profit distribution problem, why would retail stores let manufacturers add users? This is the shadow of many retail stores in the Private Domain 1.0 stage. Another shadow comes from community group buying. In the early stage, community group buying gave "group leaders" high traffic generation rewards, but later drastically cut commissions. Unstable profit distribution will definitely cast a shadow on retail and "group leaders." The profit distribution logic of bC integration must acknowledge three realities: First, the best place for private domain aggregation is the retail store (b2C); manufacturers' private domains cannot replace retail private domains. Second, even if manufacturers add users through retail stores, stores still have many means to divert private domain to competitors. Third, the three parties (manufacturer, store, and distributor) sharing the private domain can form a "small store, big operations" pattern, benefiting all three. The above is the major change in channel profits brought by bC integration: shifting from channel transaction profits to traffic profits with three-party distribution. This is the most important underlying logic for promoting bC integration. In platform e-commerce, we saw a bad example. The platform first directed traffic to merchants for free, then charged high traffic fees after forming a monopoly. In community group buying, we saw another bad example. During the traffic formation stage, the platform gave "group leaders" high commissions. After traffic formed, commissions dropped sharply. Burn the bridge after crossing the river. The two-faced behavior before and after traffic formation makes any traffic generator in digitalization worried. Platform e-commerce involves three parties' interests (platform, merchants, users), community group buying involves four parties (platform, merchants, group leaders, users), and bC integration involves four parties (manufacturers, distributors, retail stores, users), making interest relationships more complex. If a new mechanism for the four-party interest relationship cannot be formed, bC integration has no solution and can only be applied under limited conditions. First, it cannot be two-faced before and after traffic formation like platform e-commerce and community group buying. Second, profit distribution must be institutionalized; otherwise, it cannot win the trust of the b-end. This is precisely the difficulty of bC integration. The difficulty is not in digital technology or marketing promotion methods, but in reshaping the channel profit distribution system. Source: Teacher Liu's Digital New Marketing (ID: liuchunxiong1964) Author: Liu Chunxiong ****__**-END-**