Summer is the peak season for beverage sales, so both beverage companies and distributors are striving to capture a larger market. Recently, some products with highly distinctive names have started preheating and spreading online, including fruit tea drinks, functional beverages, mineral water, milk drinks, and snack foods. You call yours "gua" (croak), I call mine "pa" (pop); you call yours tiger, I call mine leopard; you call yours plum, I call mine sister; you call yours younger brother, I call mine older brother; you call yours gentleman, I call mine guest; you have ginseng, I have fruit; you have white, I have black; you have six, I have seven; you have pie, I have cute; you have claws, I have beasts, etc. These seemingly distinctive names and packaging are all self-promoting. Some industry bosses and so-called experts are applauding, as if it would be unjust for these products not to become hits. They feel it's all so wonderful. From a different perspective, what do distributors think? Let me ask you three questions: How much are you prepared to invest? How will you build the market? How long will you persist? As a manufacturer, think carefully about how to answer these questions and how to proceed after the product is launched. How many companies are truly willing to work down-to-earth to build the market and do well with a product and category? More often, it's about grandstanding, self-appreciation, and money-raising schemes. I may sound harsh, but some might feel wronged. But let's look back: How many so-called "good" products are launched at the annual Sugar and Wine Fair? Good content, differentiation, attractive packaging, and distinctive—should be a good product. But after the fair, look back and see how many products are still being sold, how many are actually moving off the shelves, and how many companies are still fighting. At this point, many might say I'm too pessimistic, too cowardly, only seeing the dark side and not the bright side. Well, where is the bright side? When will our distributor friends' inventory see the light of day? I have always believed that achieving a big single product and building a brand requires accumulation and persistence, not just the "three slaps" and then it's over. The so-called "three slaps" are: when launching a new product, you're enthusiastic and slap your chest; when the product doesn't sell, you're anxious and slap the table; when the product is discontinued, you sigh and slap your forehead, then come up with another one next year. This is the cycle of most companies. Three to five years pass, even ten years, and the company hasn't developed significantly, let alone built a brand. Innovation is not aimless or without strategic thinking, nor can it be subjective and opportunistic. It must be considered from the market, company, and competitive perspectives, achieving "unity of knowledge and action." At this point, some might say, "We're a small company with no money, no people, and no products. How can we survive?" Imitating and counterfeiting is our survival tactic; we can't innovate. Such companies, in their early stages, to survive in this domestic market environment, take risks by making low-quality, knockoff products and selling them to relatively backward rural areas. The reason such companies don't grow is that they lack brand awareness at their core. They are unwilling to do complex channel work, personnel work, or activity work. They prefer short-term, quick, and cheap naked-price operations. Over time, their team doesn't grow, and obviously, they won't build a product brand. The new product launches at the Sugar and Wine Fair are often grandstanding. There's no innovation in the product content; they just change the packaging and name, do a round of recruitment, push the product to the market, and if it doesn't sell, it dies miserably, harming distributor friends, and the manufacturer is just a flash in the pan. Can we still see "black water" this year? Will "light beverages" still be hot? Why did "cocktails" suffer a Waterloo-style collapse? Can "maca beverages" continue to fool people? Will "near-water beverages" continue to capture the market? These were all "gimmick" whirlwinds at the spring Sugar and Wine Fair, and now the market is not good. The reasons are: first, the products are not healthy or tasty, can't withstand consumer testing, and only result in one-time purchases, failing to form long-term product strength; second, the company's mindset is not strategic positioning. They don't treat the product as a 5- or 10-year brand route, but only want to attract the market with product concept innovation. Why can plant protein beverages like peanut, walnut, coconut, and soy milk develop steadily long-term and even achieve monopolistic development in some regions? Because the product quality is good and meets market demand. The milk market has been steadily improving; the key is that milk has nutritional value and consumers need it. Why is packaged drinking water gradually developing? The acceleration of urbanization and the boom in suburban tourism have given small-packaged water market space. Why does room-temperature lactic acid bacteria grow at over 20% annually? Because it suits consumer needs and is a healthy drink. In plain terms, it's a good thing, so consumers are willing to pay for it. Looking back at every Sugar and Wine Fair, it's the same. I hope our distributor friends keep their eyes open and not be deceived by "distinctive, quirky" products. They must evaluate products from aspects such as taste, quality, market demand, company strength, operational thinking, and regional conditions before choosing. -END-