Scan the QR code in the image to register -01- The killer move of internet players against traditional marketing is disintermediation, going directly to consumers (2C). Marketing digitalization has once again ignited some people's dream of eliminating intermediaries. However, disintermediation is a major pitfall for brand owners in marketing digitalization. Internet players are obsessed with disintermediation. On one hand, today's major platforms are the fruits of disintermediation, setting an example. On the other hand, frankly, understanding C (consumers) is easy because everyone is a C, and empathy suffices. But understanding B (businesses) is difficult. Currently, the scarcest talent in marketing digitalization systems is internet people who understand the B-end. Third, C can be quickly ignited by burning money, but the B-end cannot be ignited that way. Many may still remember the lessons from B2B. Because of the disintermediation mindset, marketing digitalization is often designed as "direct-operated e-commerce." Another oddity is that marketing digitalization is turned into retail digitalization, or even called smart retail tools. My view is: 1. In the marketing digitalization environment, intermediation is no longer an obstacle to reaching users; instead, it may be an amplifier for broader user reach. For brand owners to reach hundreds of millions of users, disintermediation might be unimaginable. 2. The future channel must be a hybrid channel, combining long and short channels. Disintermediated and intermediated channels coexist, and intermediated channels may remain mainstream. 3. Disintermediation builds platforms, not necessarily brands. Cross-category super platforms can be disintermediated, such as B2C platforms (e.g., Alibaba) and O2O platforms (e.g., Meituan). 4. For industry-leading brands, intermediated channels are the main channels, while disintermediated channels are auxiliary. New brands may enter under the banner of disintermediation, but to grow big, they must undergo re-intermediation. -02- In the marketing digitalization environment, brand owners no longer think about traffic but about the mode of reaching users. Traffic thinking can rest! As long as brand owners reach users, they can have traffic. Traffic thinking is platform thinking; touchpoint thinking is brand owner thinking. Manufacturers (F-end, brand owners) have three ways to reach users (C-end): First, direct-operated e-commerce, with no intermediaries, directly reaching C-end. For example, brand owners build their own apps. This is true B2C (actually F2C). Very few enterprises have the qualification and capability to build their own apps and possess huge traffic. Second, leveraging internet platforms (P-end) to directly reach C-end. This includes platform e-commerce and live-streaming platforms. Some call this B2C, but that's misleading by the platforms. The correct expression should be F2P2C, where P (platform) is also an intermediary. Third, reaching C-end through distributed channels (B-end and b-end). This is achieved through the traditional channel's [full-chain digitalization + full-scenario reach], which is the F2B2b2C model. Of course, there may be other models, such as F2B2C or F2b2C. But the mainstream is the three above. Non-mainstream models are not discussed here. Any path to reach users has its rationality, but you must know the maximum scale of each path. For example, for a leading enterprise, should its path to reach users be F2C, F2P2C, or F2B2b2C? Each path can support enterprises of different scales. The analysis below examines the maximum enterprise scale each path can support. We focus on three paths: F2C, F2P2C, and F2B2b2C. -03- The most successful direct-operated e-commerce (F2C) enterprise should be Xiaomi. Xiaomi's early model was F2C, which can be called direct-operated e-commerce. Xiaomi was definitely disintermediated at the start. Not only disintermediated but also de-platformed, because Xiaomi built its own direct-operated mall app. In the early days, there were no offline channels and no presence on Alibaba or JD.com. Xiaomi's early model, standing against tradition and shouting anti-traditional slogans, indeed attracted the largest direct traffic to date. Without that, there would be no Xiaomi today. However, many have reminded me that when Xiaomi said it wouldn't do offline and engaged in hunger marketing, it was actually quietly releasing products offline. Many goods in the hands of "scalpers" came from that. Later, Xiaomi joined major platforms. Major platforms are not direct-operated because the platform itself is an intermediary. Today's Xiaomi is actually a hybrid channel. It has online and offline direct operations, franchising, and platform presence. If Xiaomi hadn't adopted a hybrid channel, it likely wouldn't have become the industry leader. This is what I want to emphasize: any enterprise can completely disintermediate, but you must clearly know that disintermediation can be a slogan (gimmick) of "anti-tradition" at a certain stage, but true disintermediation cannot create a leading enterprise. Enter with the banner of disintermediation, then become a leading brand through intermediation. "Disintermediation" becomes a marketing gimmick, and those who don't understand fall for it. For brand owners doing direct-operated e-commerce, the approach is to build an app or a mini-program mall. Many enterprises have tried, with unsatisfactory results. Even companies with full product lines like Coca-Cola, P&G, and Nestlé may find it difficult. Because the stickiness of a single brand is insufficient to become a super app. Only major platforms can become super apps, as multi-category products enhance app stickiness. My conclusion is: Disintermediated direct-operated e-commerce cannot grow big, but startups might as well shout the slogan louder. After all, capital may be more interested in disruption than in improvement (transformation). -04- Are internet platforms disintermediated? For example, Alibaba, JD.com, Pinduoduo. Now also various live-streaming platforms like Douyin and Kuaishou. My judgment is: Internet platforms are new-type intermediaries under the banner of disintermediation, but they are internet intermediaries different from traditional offline intermediaries. The platform e-commerce model is not B2C; it should be F2P2C. P (Platform) is the platform. But why do most people accept the B2C term? This term is deceptive because B2C implies complete disintermediation. Complete disintermediation with such huge traffic brings obvious benefits to both B-end and C-end. If people realized that the platform itself is also an intermediary, their perception would be different. People accept the view that internet platforms are disintermediated because their past understanding of intermediaries was that intermediaries are people or institutions. In platform e-commerce, manufacturers (F) face users (C) directly, with no intermediary institutions (or people). I also thought so, but it's a misunderstanding. It wasn't until I saw a diagram in Scott Brinker's "Hacking Marketing" that I suddenly understood: In traditional intermediaries, manufacturers deal with people. But on e-commerce platforms, people deal with a virtual intermediary composed of system software (algorithms). In plain terms, the platform as an intermediary is a set of software and algorithms. Without that software and algorithms, manufacturers (F) have no chance to reach C-end. This software and algorithms can match F with C, or block C, depending on the fees you pay. Of course, it must be acknowledged that e-commerce platforms have indeed reduced intermediate links in many industries. In some industries, like agriculture, there used to be countless intermediaries from farmers to users. Now, through Pinduoduo, products can reach users in one step, and disintermediation is still commendable. Back to our core question: How large an enterprise can e-commerce platforms support? Can platforms support an industry-leading enterprise? I don't have complete data, but I feel that manufacturers with e-commerce as their main channel certainly have no enterprises exceeding 100 billion yuan in scale. In contrast, there are many offline enterprises exceeding 100 billion yuan. Except for some innovative niche brands and long-tail categories, leading mass-market brands rarely rely primarily on platform e-commerce. Brand owners should realize: joining a platform is like staying in a hotel. If you don't pay, you don't get the key; without the key, you can't enter the room. Moreover, hotel fees are charged daily. Without paying traffic fees, reaching C-end is a dream. Unless you become a platform's temporary darling, a "Lei Feng" for the platform. -05- The above is all groundwork. The conclusion from the groundwork is: Although the internet provides various new paths to reach users, direct-operated e-commerce (F2C) and platform e-commerce cannot support the digitalization of leading enterprises with trillions, hundreds of billions, or tens of billions in revenue; they can only be supplementary or auxiliary channels. Given the recurring disintermediation mindset of internet people, will traditional enterprises' marketing digitalization be another disintermediation process? Given the special nature of niche and long-tail categories, we exclude such enterprises from our discussion. The new round of marketing digitalization is the comprehensive integration of mainstream enterprises with the internet, characterized by two points: first, full-chain digitalization, leaving no link out; second, full-scenario reach, leaving no touchpoint with C-end out. Only full-chain connection and full-scenario reach can support the digitalization of enterprises at the trillion, hundred-billion, and ten-billion scale. These are the two issues traditional enterprises need to solve in marketing digitalization. Issue 1: Enterprises with trillions, hundreds of billions, or tens of billions in revenue need to reach tens of millions or hundreds of millions of users. What kind of system can reach tens of millions or hundreds of millions of users? The answer is: Full-scenario reach. There are two ways to reach hundreds of millions of users: one is through internet platforms like Alibaba, JD.com, Pinduoduo, Meituan, etc. But note that platforms reaching hundreds of millions of users does not mean brand owners can reach hundreds of millions of users. Currently, no brand owner can directly reach hundreds of millions of users. There are three types of super touchpoints to reach users: first, through products, such as one-item-one-code; second, through personnel, such as store owners and sales guides; third, through terminals, such as terminal freezers and store signs. Therefore, one-item-one-code, sales guides (store owners), and terminals are also called the three "super touchpoints." After reaching users, you can also connect users through social chains, such as group buying and cloud store push notifications for new customer acquisition. Thus, connecting users also includes direct reach and indirect connection. Using the above three methods, reaching hundreds of millions of users requires at least tens of millions or millions of touchpoints; reaching tens of millions of users requires at least millions or hundreds of thousands of touchpoints. Issue 2: What channel structure is needed to form millions or tens of millions of super touchpoints? The answer is: Full-chain connection. Each time you pass through a channel link, the connection scale amplifies. According to Dunbar's number, the limit of normal interpersonal interaction is 148. The normal chain and touchpoint scale is as follows (using personnel touchpoints as an example): Brand owner (scale, 1) → Sales team (scale, hundreds, thousands) → Distributors (scale, hundreds, thousands, ten thousands) → Retail terminals (scale, hundreds of thousands, millions) → Users (scale, tens of millions, hundreds of millions). The above chain structure is: F2B2b2C. Isn't this exactly the mainstream channel structure of traditional FMCG enterprises? -06- I have always emphasized that the current channels formed by deep distribution have no room for further reduction in channel links. China's channels are human chains, and the amplification factor at each level is limited by the limits of interpersonal relationships. Even for traditional enterprise digitalization, leading enterprises still have no possibility of disintermediation. Unless they don't want to be leading enterprises, unless they don't want to grow big. Of course, the above argument only applies to personnel touchpoints. Some say that as long as the brand (IP) is well done, personnel touchpoints are unnecessary. This clearly shows a lack of deep understanding of the Chinese market. Coca-Cola's brand influence is top-notch, and it has reduced distributor levels, but its "sales representatives" have also expanded several times. The limit of personnel touchpoints is constrained by Dunbar's number, but the information flow, business flow, logistics, and capital flow in the channel can completely cross levels. Order processes can completely bypass the F2B2b2C restriction. For example, small orders from terminal stores (b) can be placed directly from the F-end (e.g., Midea Group). Logistics can also bypass F2B2b2C, going directly from F-end to b or C-end. Each reduction in loading and unloading saves costs. Capital flow: funds from b-end or C-end can go directly to F-end. The benefits of digitalized channels are not necessarily disintermediation, but the optimization of various tasks and processes. Information flow, business flow, logistics, and capital flow should minimize channel link turnover, achieve one-step efficiency, and improve efficiency. Only the channel chain formed by human chains and the full-scenario reach formed by super touchpoints cannot be disintermediated. Source: Teacher Liu's Digital New Marketing