Introduction ************Fools are blind to what's happening, but the wise see what's coming. Before the era abandons you, it will give you a few hints. People tend to attribute their failures or difficulties to the times. Businesspeople feel that business is hard now, whereas before it was like picking up money; poets regret not being born in the 1980s when people yearned for "poetry and distance"; university graduates complain about too many college students when job hunting; the older generation, on the contrary, complains about not being able to afford schooling in their childhood. Even the heroic Xiang Yu, before committing suicide, said, "It is heaven that destroys me, not the fault of my fighting." When I read "The Song of Gaixia" in school, the teacher explained how tragic and stirring it was, moving heaven and earth. But my stubborn mind always felt it was a "coward's song": apart from the mighty "I could pull up mountains and cover the world," the rest was blaming fate, especially the last line, "Yu, Yu, what can I do?" It was so undignified—at such a moment, he was holding a woman and asking, "What should I do?" Two important points I've mentioned before:

1. When we encounter difficult problems, we tend to attribute them to a powerful factor beyond our control. This is human instinct.

2. This is an era of universal anxiety; stimulating insecurity is the biggest driver of internet content dissemination. Based on these two reasons, those who are good at "stirring up anxiety" almost all use the same weapon of mass destruction, called "the times." Hawking died, an era ended; Li Ao died, an era concluded; Li Ka-shing retired, an era passed; Givenchy died, another era was gone. In the past month or so, we've inadvertently experienced several eras. This is the milder approach, using "the times" to resonate with you, evoking nostalgia and belonging. There's also a less friendly one: "Before the era abandons you, it won't even say goodbye," the former CCTV host's motivational speech went viral; "Won all competitors but lost to the times," the fabricated quote from RT-Mart's veteran leader Huang Mingduan spread wildly online; "I'll destroy you, it's nothing personal," this phrase full of ignorant jungle law is admired by many; Others include "You didn't do anything wrong, but you're still out," "Several types of people who will be abandoned by the times," etc., all stimulating people's anxious nerves in this anxious society. Wait, do you really think Huang Mingduan, who sold part of Gaoxin's shares, cooperated with Alibaba, and resigned as director, is a loser? Isn't it a wise choice to retreat bravely? Do you really think the so-called "cross-border robbery"—phones killing cameras, food delivery killing instant noodles—is something new? Traditional business thinking only sees those selling the same products as competitors? Do you really think "this era" is a heartless wanderer who, without warning, abandons those who once rode the waves? Wrong! The fall of every giant is not a disaster without cause. Fools are blind to what's happening, but the wise see what's coming. Before a crisis arrives, there are many omens. Before the era abandons you, it will give you a few strong hints. It's up to you to catch them. Take RT-Mart, which "won all competitors but lost to the times." RT-Mart being controlled by Alibaba and then having senior executives leave one after another is the inevitable result of the distorted development of these so-called "modern channels" in recent years. RT-Mart was one of the better-performing large retail KAs; other supermarkets fared worse, some couldn't even sell off. These "modern channels" gradually transformed from retailers into platform operators, relying on various "exorbitant taxes" like entry fees, anniversary fees, promotion fees, etc., to achieve rapid growth. Life was good, but hidden dangers were exposed: Back then, some systems reduced procurement costs by charging suppliers various fees, then sold products in the circulation market. Their competitiveness gradually declined, yet they were complacent; Many suppliers, unable to bear the oppression, rose up and formed alliances to boycott Carrefour. That was a warning from the market, but they turned a blind eye, thinking they could easily handle these suppliers; Due to high entry fees, many personalized products and small enterprise products couldn't enter supermarkets, leading to a monotonous sameness across stores. Consumers lost interest in visiting supermarkets, but they turned a blind eye; Many insightful people in the industry proposed that "platform operators will die" and that supermarkets should return to the essence of retail, but they turned a blind eye; In some supermarket systems, procurement was riddled with corruption, bribery, and embezzlement, but they turned a blind eye; Yonghui Superstores took the lead in transforming into a fresh food supermarket with a focus on self-operation. They mocked it as a "housewife supermarket." By the time Yonghui was advancing triumphantly, it was too late for most systems to transform. If you only look at the past two years, large supermarkets are indeed suffering, and it's true that no one said goodbye to them; but looking at the development history of supermarkets over the years, don't you think it's because most supermarket systems were resting on channel fees, lacking innovation and core value? Isn't this a case of "good advice is wasted on the doomed"? Distributors are a group I interact with a lot, and they are also the group that troubles me the most. In recent years, the call for "disintermediation" has been endless, with various "no middlemen to earn the difference." Many distributor friends were eliminated without even a "goodbye." Most of those not eliminated are still very anxious, busy with various transformations, but often end up as "leeks cut again and again." Core functions of distributors: information, promotion, negotiation; routine functions: ordering, financing, risk-taking, physical possession, payment, and title transfer. Back in the day, large manufacturers would launch a campaign today and a new system tomorrow. Over time, the core functions of distributors were taken away, turning them into "prohibited sellers" who only handled stocking, delivery, and advance payments. At that time, most didn't feel that "the times would say goodbye"; instead, they were happy to be relaxed. Platform operators charged distributors various fees, but distributors only saw the platform's apparent huge traffic, ignoring whether their products and services could be monetized. In the past two years, everyone has been shifting to B2B e-commerce. Among the distributors I know who are somewhat larger, almost all have adopted ordering software, but few have successfully transformed. The tech companies making apps, on the other hand, have made a lot of money. They follow manufacturers, follow platforms, follow various "billion-dollar market opportunities," follow the so-called "irreversible trends," but they never focus on building their own "core competitiveness." Do you think it's "the times eliminated him," or is he "cutting himself off from the times"? Let's talk specifics. In the past two years, Wahaha has been heavily criticized, almost becoming a symbol of tradition and conservatism. However, in 2013, when Wahaha's sales reached 78 billion yuan and Zong Qinghou repeatedly sat on the throne of China's richest man, how much media and industry flattery was there, how many cheers of "long live"? How many people noticed that since the launch of Nutri-Express in 2005, Wahaha had not introduced a successful major product for eight years? How many noticed that the distribution alliance that made Wahaha famous had already seen many manufacturer-distributor conflicts? Isn't this a hint from the times before it struck Wahaha? Recently, JD.com had a spat with writer Liu Liu. After some ineffective PR denial, JD.com ended up apologizing, and the matter subsided. JD.com's PR was a minus, but ultimately they made the right choice. As a company, don't pick the wrong opponent. You can confront a stronger Alibaba, even Tencent, but never a KOL like Liu Liu who can represent a large number of consumers. Ten JDs wouldn't be a match. In fact, JD.com and Liu Liu had a grudge before; last time it just didn't blow up. Add to that the earlier "sapphire" incident, where "JD self-operated" wasn't what it seemed. JD's self-operated positioning was weakened, and trust was greatly reduced in many people's minds. I wonder if Liu Qiangdong considers this a "hint" from the times? Dali, the strongest domestic food company, just released its 2017 financial report. Performance is still shining, with sales approaching 20 billion yuan. The new product "Dou Ben Dou" contributed significantly to its growth. But not long ago, there were reports in the industry of severe inventory pressure and poor channel sales for Dou Ben Dou. According to New Distribution's calculations, the so-called 1 billion yuan impressive performance was mostly just the initial payments from distributors. Isn't this a harsh hint? Isn't it seductive? Can Dali and Boss Xu see it? Will they take it seriously? Recently, there's been talk of cross-border robbery, like food delivery killing instant noodles, smartphones killing digital cameras, smartphones killing chewing gum, and mobile payment killing thieves. They say this is a new business model. Can we have some business common sense? More TV viewers mean fewer radio listeners; with the internet, fewer people watch TV or read newspapers; more square dancing means fewer mahjong players. The emergence of substitutes and their ability to substitute has always been an important topic in business research. The Porter's Five Forces model, which is everywhere, explains this. Is reading a book that hard on your eyes? There's also "dimensional reduction strike," supposedly business can be like in "The Three-Body Problem," where a civilization far more advanced than us could pass through the solar system and destroy our entire civilization like stepping on an ant. That's reading too much sci-fi. They're directly applying sci-fi logic to business logic. Sci-fi logic is superhuman, not human logic. Business has its own rules, premised on human society, based on human nature and social organization. No one's business model can be a "civilization" higher than yours. Dialectical materialism tells us that internal causes are the basis of development and the primary reason; external causes work through internal causes. If you are abandoned by the times, there must be internal reasons. The current era is indeed developing faster, and will continue to accelerate. New things emerge constantly. The time you break up with the times is often when you are hot-headed and complacent. If you are truly declining, then when everything still looks good, there must be clues, even problems as big as a cartload of firewood, presented before you. In an era of fragmented and even dust-like information, we need to get used to the fuss and sensationalism of some "big shots." Using the times to scare us might be their ultimate weapon. They gain traffic by stimulating our inner insecurity, but we need to solidify our sense of security to pursue higher needs. We still need to move forward and create greater value. If we listen to the mole cricket's chirping, should we stop planting crops? Source: Lao Miao Tears Marketing (ID: yiheyingxiao) -END-