In November, we held the 'First Instant Retail Supply Summit' in Hangzhou. Attending brands generally reported high information density and expanded thinking. Almost every brand stated that the company places great importance on instant retail and will increase investment in this area. After the summit, continued exchanges revealed an interesting phenomenon: everyone says they 'value' it, but 'valuing' falls into three categories:

  1. Verbal valuing—collecting reports for presentations
  2. Action valuing—allocating teams but with mismatched strategies
  3. Systematic valuing—acknowledging reality and proactively adjusting Though all say they 'value' it, three months later the outcomes diverge: some see sales soar, while others are still collecting materials for reports. Where's the difference? Let me break down these three types of 'valuing'.

Verbal Valuing: Collecting Reports for Presentations

The first type is so-called 'valuing' that stays at the verbal level. The sales head gives the word, and the team starts bustling. They attend meetings, conduct interviews, collect reports, and then report to leadership. The problem with this type is that leadership's emphasis stays verbal, and the responsible person's emphasis stays on collecting reports for presentations. It doesn't translate into specific strategies for 'city—warehouse—people—metrics,' and there's no concrete action plan. Following inertia, they treat ad spending as progress, and Sell-in and Sell-out remain disconnected. The result is that files pile up in group chats, and SKUs never make it into warehouses. This is the situation for many brands today. Channels are changing rapidly, so brands must move quickly. Stop staying at 'cognitive valuing' and immediately switch to 'action valuing': identify cross-departmental decision-makers, find brand service providers, start with pilot cities, take action, discover problems and review lessons in practice, then gradually expand.

Allocating Teams but with Mismatched Strategies

The second type of 'valuing' is starting to act but with inappropriate strategies. Many deep-distribution brands fall into this category. They understand the channel's importance, set up dedicated teams, and even work with two or three service providers, but business hasn't progressed. Service providers bluntly say—'Pricing is simply unworkable.' The reason is clear: the brand's offline distributor network is tangled, pricing systems are chaotic, and cross-regional selling is rampant. Multiple prices for the same product mean service providers are unwilling to take it on; there's no profit. Warehouse-stores either don't carry the product or source it from the market. The problem for such brands isn't 'no action' but that existing issues can't be resolved at the current responsible person's level. Essentially, this is something higher management hasn't thought through or committed to. Not doing it is impossible, but doing it touches existing interests. It's indeed a dilemma. Only a few brands are trying to break through by first accepting the status quo and then actively adjusting policies.

Accepting Reality and Actively Adjusting

The third type is accepting reality and being willing to adjust policies. This is currently a minority. Despite facing similar issues as the second type, management treats instant retail as a 'future growth engine'—even if monthly sales are only 1 million, they plan for a future scale of 20 million: dedicated teams, coordinated service providers, formulated strategies, and invested resources. How do they think and act regarding value chain issues?

  1. Give up profits first to secure shelf space Treat lightning warehouse 'slots' as infrastructure investment, not quarterly profit items. In an era of limited shelf space, entering the warehouse precedes sales. Without sufficient slots and SKUs, in-store operations are impossible. Once secured, use new products to pull back gross margins. Not by blanket price cuts to 'exchange volume,' but by scenario-based new products/small sizes/high repurchase to build structural profits.
  2. Shift from 'supply of goods' to 'brand services' Designate a primary city supplier to unify supply sources and landed prices; sign cooperation agreements with service providers where warehouses exchange for coupons: expanding warehouses gives coupons, improving slots gives coupons, meeting targets gives coupons, turning advertising from 'exposure' into a tool for 'warehouse control.'
  3. Get organization and rhythm right Build a 'small but hard' cross-departmental team, distinguish between head and mid-tail warehouse-store systems, and approach them from large to small, from headquarters to regional, one by one before covering. Advance city by city, review warehousing and price rules weekly, and review per-warehouse output and repurchase monthly. Doing this will temporarily affect existing interests; but not doing it means multiple prices for the same product, warehouse-stores hesitant to stock, platforms not giving weight, and money continuously spent on inefficient advertising. Conversely, once in the warehouse, subsequent in-store operations, ranking consolidation, and repurchase improvement enter a positive cycle.

Future: 'Sell-in' and 'Sell-out' Must Be Connected

The third type of 'valuing' is indeed difficult but correct. Why? First, limited shelf space means securing positions first. Instant retail 'warehouse-stores' have limited shelf space; a category only accommodates a few brands. If you enter, others are excluded; if others enter, you're excluded. Only by securing the slot can you achieve conversion, repurchase, and ranking. Second, 'sell-in' precedes 'sell-out.' Many brands still stick to O2O coupon and traffic logic—treating 'exposure' as 'progress.' The problem is that O2O supply and advertising are split, 'sell-in' and 'sell-out' are disconnected, and cost-effectiveness is unclear. Warehouse-stores differ from O2O: only with controllable supply can advertising have an anchor. Only when you can 'enter, supply, and hold prices' will in-store operations (keywords, activities, reviews) be effective, monthly sales rise, and rankings solidify. Third, warehouse-store output per unit is higher. Instant retail uses a search + timeliness distribution mechanism: more complete SKUs, faster delivery, and more accurate matching. The result is that with the same advertising spend, warehouse-store output per unit is often higher than offline store listings. This determines that the dividend lies in warehouses, not in store listings. Fourth, annual focus: first enter warehouses, then operate. 2025: Focus on warehousing and securing slots. Focus on 'warehouse—slot—price rules.' First solidify key slots in major warehouse-store systems and do 'sell-in' well. 2026: Focus on in-store and in-warehouse operations. Focus on 'keywords—scenario words—activity planning—review systems—repurchase design' to do 'sell-out' well. Without occupying shelf space, operations are out of the question.

Final Thoughts

Instant retail changes too fast; the window period waits for no one. On March 17, 2026, in Chengdu, we will hold the 'CFC Second Instant Retail Supply Summit and Instant Retail Warehouse-Store Product Matchmaking Conference.' This edition focuses on one thing: getting the right products into the right warehouses and making them move faster. Key topics and outputs will revolve around:

  1. 50+ TOP warehouse-store distributors sharing their product assortment logic firsthand;

  2. The most complete list and classification form of warehouse-store systems;

  3. The latest brand operation case studies;

  4. Warehouse-store matchmaking: brand × warehouse-store × service provider matching, landing model cities and model warehouses. Suitable for: brand leaders, instant retail/channel leaders, e-commerce and operations teams, supply chain leaders, regional service providers, and warehouse-store systems. Make supply more controllable and growth more certain. Friends who care about instant retail channels, don't miss it!