导语:市场调研中的“问题链”,须建立一条由点到面的标准化问题处理体系。 作 者丨海游 校审丨康治强排版丨何雯
This year, I conducted market research with several enterprise managers, participating from field visits to the formulation and implementation of final solutions. We found a common problem: a lack of standardized process from problem discovery to resolution.
Take a simple example: during a visit, we found that a market had low-quality distribution points, low average SKU per store, and low display compliance. The next morning's meeting immediately proposed corrective actions, but despite implementation, results were poor, and some salespeople even resorted to widespread falsification under pressure. Why? Possibly because the company's monthly assessment focused on the number of outlets, which determined salespeople's income. The temporary indicator stretched their capacity, forcing them to fake data. Complaints emerged: "Leaders make decisions on a whim." To illustrate: if you have a pustule on your face, you immediately apply ointment, but the root cause is internal heat; the ointment is almost ineffective, and while one spot heals, another appears. Market problems are similar: behind a surface phenomenon lies a deeper cause, requiring a complete solution system. Today, let's discuss this system.
Objective Description of Facts: The Foundation of Problem-Solving
Without accurately describing the market situation, problems cannot be efficiently solved. Here, we must clarify: what is a fact? What is an opinion? Is "the warehouse stock is low" a fact? Of course not; it's your opinion. The fact is that the warehouse has 1,520 units, including 500 of flavor A, 100 of flavor B, 300 of flavor C, and 620 of flavor D. The fact is that flavor B sells an average of 50 units per day, enough for only 2 days. So, when brand personnel communicate with distributors about market operations, payments, shipments, or resource allocation without verifying facts, it's typical nonsense. The foundation of problem-solving is to clarify facts and debate facts, not opinions. Only by objectively describing market facts can we reach consensus with those executing in the problem market and solve problems efficiently; otherwise, there's surface harmony but covert resistance, a major source of falsification. Common market problems can be categorized into four loops:
- Execution loop: outlets, displays, visits, sell-through
- Management loop: standards, authenticity, inspection, incentives
- Process loop: expenses, warehousing, orders, delivery
- Business loop: products, tools, methods, willingness
When a Problem Arises, First Examine Processes and Systems
When encountering market problems, I generally recommend solving from the inside out. First, study whether the relevant systems and processes match the problem. Typically, three situations arise:
1. Process/System Gap: No relevant process supports the phenomenon.
For example, salespeople often prioritize major stores over small ones during visits. When this occurs, we first check if the company has requirements for visiting small stores—for instance, a biweekly visit requirement. If not, the missing process must be added.
2. Process/System Supplement: Relevant process exists but is incomplete, requiring supplementation.
Using the same example, we find that a biweekly visit requirement for small stores exists, but salespeople still fail to execute. This indicates a process gap, so we need to add a daily tracking mechanism for salespeople.
3. Process/System Correction: Relevant process exists but does not match the current situation.
For example, a company offers a display fee of 100 yuan per month in a province. Research shows poor execution in tier 1-2 city business districts, but good results in tier 3-5 districts. Clearly, a one-size-fits-all fee structure means higher-tier cities have insufficient funds, leading to poorer execution. Here, the process does not match market reality and needs correction.
In summary, when a problem is discovered, the first step is to determine whether the process/system is missing, needs supplementation, or needs improvement. This sets the tone. If processes and systems are fine, the next step is to check execution.
If Processes and Systems Are Fine, Consider Execution
Without execution, even the best processes and systems are useless. Execution = Knowledge × Attitude × Skill × Inspection. Here, we need to consider two teams: is the brand's execution problematic, or the distributor's? The evaluation path is the same, with four steps.
1. Knowledge Affects Execution: If You Don't Understand, You Can't Do It.
Product knowledge, logistics knowledge, channel knowledge—these are basic knowledge reserves for every marketing professional. To improve grassroots team execution, basic knowledge is essential. This is the first step in marketing team training and the most easily overlooked. Knowledge training requires memory, understanding, recitation, and examination to verify.
2. Attitude Affects Execution: If Attitude Is Not Right, You Can't Succeed.
Attitude is hard to quantify. What is a good attitude? What is a bad one? Does mood affect attitude? Does assessment affect attitude? What basis does a leader use to judge attitude? This is not a pragmatic indicator; it requires soft guidance, training, and necessary communication and incentives.
3. Skill Affects Execution: Must Be Proficient, Not Just Familiar.
Skill training should not be limited to learning. The master leads you in, but practice is up to you. Skill improvement requires trainers to continuously guide grassroots workers to practice, ideally forming muscle memory. For example, if the company requires 20 cut-case displays daily, an unskilled salesperson might take 5-6 minutes per case and often cut the beverage. How can they execute well? My suggestion: train first, then practice continuously, then implement in the market, and finally summarize, correct, and replicate.
4. Tracking Affects Execution: Inspection Overrides Trust.
Self-disciplined people are rare; otherwise, there wouldn't be so many regulatory agencies. Tracking and inspection aim to force grassroots teams to develop habits closer to "self-discipline," learn self-reflection, and work under leadership supervision.
In summary, if a market problem occurs and processes/systems are fine, it's an execution issue. The key role in execution is the salesperson, so we must deeply explore why they "don't do it."
After Processes/Systems and Execution, Systematic Empowerment
In the internet era, FMCG companies cannot do without digital systems. What role do systems play in solving these problems? I list three points:
1. Performance Assessment: No outlets, no sales. Take outlets, our most concern. Assessments include quantity, quality, activity rate, monthly sales, and outlet level. When outlet problems are found, if processes and execution are in place, the SFA function in the system can effectively evaluate monthly performance levels, providing a basis for performance assessment.
2. Incentive Policies: For example, Jinmailang was the first in the industry to propose an outlet points system, turning market actions into points, rewarding salespeople for more outlet actions, converting management into incentives, thereby stimulating grassroots initiative and improving human efficiency. This highlights the system's powerful functions.
3. Multi-functional System Implementation: For instance, digitalizing customer operations requires the TPM module; efficient channel transactions require the DMS module; efficient expense use requires the ERP module. These market efficiency improvements require corresponding modules.
Final Thoughts:
Let's summarize the methodology for solving market problems: current situation description → process/system → execution analysis → system empowerment. Again, market researchers should not solve problems in isolation. A problem is not just a single phenomenon; behind it lies a "problem chain." We must get to the root. FMCG manufacturers and distributors must form a complete problem-solving system, addressing the point to drive the whole, and thoroughly eliminate issues.
Extended Reading:
Haiyou: Special contributor to New Distribution, senior researcher, offline channel marketing practitioner, and designer of enterprise channel coverage models. He has provided channel consulting for over ten first-tier brands, earning a good reputation.