Click the image for details B-b-B It's been a while since I've written serious B2B dry goods. Actually, we can define the scope of B2B more broadly: all business-to-business operations and services are B2B. Whether from the perspective of business models, industry understanding, B2B operations, or entrepreneurship, I will try to continuously generate new ideas and thoughts to share with everyone. For internet B2B projects, especially B2B e-commerce, the past year or two hasn't been particularly good. No star model projects have emerged. Especially for platforms that started with matchmaking, whether they pivoted to self-operated, logistics, or financial services, they haven't achieved the expected growth. Even if some B2B companies have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, or large listed platforms have started to profit, there are still challenges in the logic of the model. The concept of integrating information flow, logistics, and capital flow—truly providing information, logistics, and financial services to the same group of customers—is still rare. From a business conversion perspective, if these three flows aren't funnel-shaped, and each segment operates independently, where's the competitive advantage? From a supply chain management and service perspective, trying to imitate JD.com's model for a prolonged battle, relying on massive funding to sustain losses for years to build channels, logistics, and financial systems, is problematic. The heavy-asset, large-scale nature of 2B means that relying solely on primary market capital is completely insufficient to build an independent logistics and capital flow supply chain system. Actually, I am quite optimistic about B2B, but I've noticed that B2B projects are too eager to change the original ecosystem. They hope to use internet models or products to find advantageous explosive models, rapidly expand scale, raise funds, expand again, form local monopolies in certain areas, and obtain excess profits. But except for the lucky ones who caught the early wind, most projects can only be described as barely satisfactory. Have we ever thought about how to better improve and reform the existing ecosystem, truly leveraging the resources and elements in the current ecosystem through clever and reasonable methods? Not by trying to revolutionize anyone on our own—relying solely on ourselves without capital to fuel the fire can only produce a weak flame. But by uniting and collaborating with as many people as possible to build a new improved model, we might be able to burn a path to the sky. B-b-B Alright, I've rambled on to set the stage for a series of thoughts from recent reflections. B2B: should we directly connect enterprises, or directly connect enterprise people? Actually, it should be a connection of enterprise-enterprise person-enterprise. I've created (or maybe fooled myself into) a "B-b-B" theory. The small 'b' in the middle can be various forms of connecting people to connect enterprises. The forms might include channel restructuring to introduce new increments, redistribution of interests to tap into people's needs, supply chain restructuring to change inefficient supply chains, and the core of model restructuring is leveraging human power to change the original ecosystem. Relying solely on software and internet products to change the ecosystem and make connections, ignoring the human factor, is almost impossible. We must admit that To B business is mostly strong relationships! On one hand, these are strong relationships between enterprises; on the other hand, they are strong relationships between enterprise people. In To B business, businesses based on weak relationships generally account for a smaller proportion of the entire ecosystem. So, based on this theoretical foundation, we need to focus on how to break existing strong relationships and establish new ones. For To C business, increments are relatively easy to achieve; but for To B business, increments are hard. So how can we attract some enterprises and people from the original ecosystem to play with us? It's about uniting some people to take a piece of the cake from others. Except for those projects that can truly create increments, most B2B projects need to seriously consider how to cleverly unite more people to carve out a larger share from the existing cake, and build solid barriers to maintain this alliance. Changing the ecosystem is really difficult. I'll just throw out some thoughts to spark discussion and share them with you. Welcome to discuss! To avoid the previous issue of overly long content that's inconvenient to read (and honestly, many cases I haven't fully studied, and questions aren't fully thought through...), today I'll release the first episode: Sales vs. Channels Sales or channels? Not many B2B companies can answer this question clearly. Although most B2B platforms aim to disintermediate, isn't matchmaking itself a new form of intermediary? So why don't we think about what the true core value of B2B is? In traditional business models, channels are extremely important. Some products, like consumer goods, have complex sales situations and require long channel distributions and terminal services, forming the existing multi-level distribution system. Manufacturers don't have strong control over the distribution system. But for some raw material products, factories want to sell directly to end users from the start, building sales teams of dozens or hundreds to cover all customers regardless of size. Only when they encounter customers they can't handle do they allocate some to distributors. Channels have two meanings: one is the circulation path, and the other is the barrier to circulation. In most To B ecosystems, from the perspective of social division of labor, the role of channels won't be replaced. B2B projects have the potential to play the role of channel providers. But this channel needs to create synergistic increments; otherwise, where does the incremental momentum come from to change the original channels? Making sales increments is relatively easy. Upstream has sales pressure, and through various means, the pressure can be distributed throughout the sales channel. But whether the pushed-down sales become inventory, supply chain inventory pledges, are diverted to other regions, or are truly consumed, upstream has little control. Building channels is not an overnight task. Only through true data-driven management can you establish your own sales channel capillaries, monitor the fullness of the sales channel reservoir, and track the speed of goods flow and consumption. With agile supply chain management and channel construction, you can accelerate product turnover, fully grasp the dynamic supply chain, and further develop effective supply chain finance business. Leveraging new internet ideas can greatly accelerate the process of building new channels. Let's look at a case to spark some inspiration: From Low-End Manufacturing to New Channels Company A is in the low-end manufacturing industry, producing various printing consumables, including toner cartridges, ink cartridges, and ribbons. It mainly sells through wholesalers, agents, and self-operated stores, with annual sales of about 30 million yuan, but net profit is very thin at only 2%. Company A tried many transformation methods, such as direct sales or e-commerce channels, or extending the service chain to include printer maintenance and repair. But ordinary consumers have low demand for toner cartridges, while enterprises or institutions that need large quantities usually procure through bidding. The characteristics of the industry chain led to the failure of these attempts. After going through a detour, Company A returned to the starting point and began to examine the user chain, clarify the entire process, discover user needs, and analyze whether there is room for innovation. By studying user composition, Company A found that customers accounting for 70% of toner cartridge usage are high-volume window units, such as banks and insurance companies. The departments responsible for material procurement are usually administrative departments. During the year, each department reports its toner cartridge needs to the administrative department, which notifies suppliers to deliver on time. Goods arrive at the administrative department for acceptance and warehousing. User departments come with requisition forms to pick up goods, completing outbound procedures. During the process, user departments also hand over broken cartridges to the administrative department, which are collected by the supplier at year-end. From the time a user department generates a need to actually receiving the cartridge, it takes at least a week. Moreover, both the administrative department and user departments have to maintain inventory, and some enterprises even need to set aside dedicated space to store these cartridges. If Company A's thinking started from how to sell cartridges, it wouldn't have discovered the many troubles users face during use. So, could a new operating system be considered? Independent distributors could estimate timing and replenish supplies at customers' premises. Company A then designed a box filled with a month's supply of cartridges, with service visits every 15 days. They replenish used cartridges, recycle broken ones, and inspect unused ones. Later, Company A also collaborated with many third-party companies for promotional distribution, delivering flyers, discount coupons, and trial samples, charging delivery service fees. This box became a channel. Besides cartridges, it also contained China Mobile discount cards, fuel discount cards, tea bag samples, cinema ticket packages, seasonal fruits, and instant coffee samples, etc. (cross-industry cooperation) These giveaways became small benefits for customers, and the receiving staff were happy. Company A also gained additional income, allowing them to lower cartridge prices and gain a competitive advantage in procurement bidding. (benefiting all partners) With an open mind, Company A began continuous innovation. They launched an inspection system that allows customers to visually see the consumption of all printers in their enterprise, the next replenishment time, and forecast next month's usage. (data-driven, data analysis) Later, Company A expanded its delivery service, supporting mobile ordering, so customers can order products for delivery with the box at any time. (new channel established) Through analysis of the user chain and innovation based on needs, Company A transformed from providing products to providing solutions. Its profit margin exceeded 10%, turning from a low-end manufacturer into a new type of channel company. Since the story in the first episode is cited, I won't analyze it too much. After reading, do you feel inspired? Compare it with your own company's current situation and ecosystem—are there any lessons to learn? -END-