Marketing is a practical science with a single purpose: to facilitate long-term, sustained, and stable transactions between suppliers and demanders of products/services. All underlying marketing logic revolves around this purpose. For this reason, the essence of marketing does not change with changes in era, country, language, or tools. In this regard, marketing (theory and tools) is a universal methodology, which has been the underlying logic of multinational corporations' international expansion over the past half-century. The Development Trajectory of Chinese-style Marketing The previously summarized "Chinese-style marketing" (here specifically referring to the body of thought summarizing marketing in China from the reform and opening-up to 2008) is not unique to China but rather the underlying logic of how enterprises in late-developing economies compete with strong brands from developed economies. The experience, methods, and tools of Chinese-style marketing can more effectively guide marketing in domestic markets of late-developing market economies such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America than the classic marketing theories born in the United States (here referring to marketing theories and methods formed by Kotler, McKinsey, 4A advertising agencies, etc.). In this field, Chinese-style marketing also qualifies as a universal methodology. The 1980s: The Enlightenment Period of Chinese Sales At the beginning of the reform and opening-up, township enterprises had been thriving for over a decade. At that time, various commodities were in short supply. Although township enterprises started from a much lower base than large, medium, and small state-owned enterprises and urban collective enterprises, with lower personnel quality, poor management, and relatively backward technology and equipment, they developed rapidly during that specific period due to strong market demand and the fact that their products sold themselves. Besides environmental factors, the development of township enterprises mainly benefited from "capable-person sales." Sales personnel at that time had no professional knowledge or skills; they simply "each showed their prowess" and "each climbed the mountain with their own efforts." They deserve respect. It was their efforts that provided dawn and increased confidence for later urban economic reforms (vigorously developing the private economy). The 1990s: The Enlightenment Period of Chinese Marketing Entering the 1990s, China's macro environment changed: First, ideologically, private enterprises were no longer excluded, ushering in a golden period for private enterprise development; second, China's economy began to shift from shortage to balance, even surplus. With China's extremely weak commercial foundation, if enterprises did not systematically introduce marketing, survival—let alone development—would be problematic. The fundamental reason for the decline of township enterprises in the 1990s was that, overall, they failed to transform from individual sales to systematic marketing in a timely manner. The large-scale marketing enlightenment not only brought the rapid diffusion of marketing concepts and techniques, but also various ideas and concepts spread quickly through consulting, training, forums, and media. Although we call it "marketing enlightenment," what truly achieved breakthroughs was "professional sales": how to sell more and at a good price. The 2000s: The Formation and Release Period of Chinese-style Marketing Defining the marketing and sales of Chinese enterprises is seemingly easy but actually very difficult. The reason lies in the background and reference points of classic theory. Marketing theory originated in developed countries, and the reference for Chinese enterprises' understanding of marketing is multinational corporations. Multinational corporations are mostly the best enterprises in developed countries. Their technology and equipment are at the world's highest level, as is the added value of their products. Note that multinational corporations must rely on their own invention and creation for technological innovation and product upgrades. In contrast, Chinese enterprises, because their original technological level is lower than that of multinational corporations and their product added value is also lower, have a more convenient and effective method: introducing mature technologies used by multinational corporations or imitating their products, in addition to their own invention and creation. Because the development stages and preconditions differ, the methods of technological innovation and product upgrades between Chinese enterprises and multinational corporations inevitably differ fundamentally. But Kotler's works and the practices of multinational corporations do not teach Chinese enterprises "how to imitate"; they mostly teach "how to invent and create." The fundamental reason Chinese enterprises could create an economic miracle is that they efficiently achieved the largest-scale learning, introduction, and imitation in the history of modern world economic development. Chinese-style marketing deserves great credit for reaching this level. What pains Trump most now is that Chinese enterprises, through learning, introduction, imitation, and independent innovation, have established the world's most complete industrial chain, built a nationwide advantage in mid-to-low-end manufacturing, and through "Made in China 2025," China is expected to challenge high-end manufacturing. Because the United States, due to arrogance and short-sightedness, made large-scale capital transfers to China, it made a fortune but inevitably created the largest trade deficit (product imports). Although this process was accompanied by the strictest annual reviews of most-favored-nation status, intellectual property protection regulations, and anti-dumping investigations, it did not suppress the learning and imitation process of Chinese enterprises. Japan was very cautious in capital transfer and technology licensing, but it still could not prevent the crown of the electronics kingdom from falling to China. Since multinational corporations are far ahead of Chinese enterprises in customer demand research, products, technology, processes, and equipment, Chinese enterprises can completely abandon investments in these areas and concentrate their wisdom and resources on sales and strategic sales through efficient learning, introduction, and imitation. China's industry-leading enterprises have constructively and effectively achieved strategic sales between marketing and sales. Their strategic sales combine sales and marketing into one, fully unleashing the enormous market potential formed by their follow-the-leader strategy toward multinational corporations. From 2010 to the Present: The Incubation Period of Chinese-style New Marketing The rise of the internet world is the most important commercial and social event of the 21st century. The integration of the internet world and the physical world will be the century-long main line throughout the 21st century. It is gratifying that China was the first to form the three-world commercial landscape, and the co-evolutionary development driven by technology, capital, and Chinese consumers over the past decade has made China the world's most advanced commercial arena: the cashless payment achieved in the last five years allows everyone to travel without carrying cash (penniless). Such a change is unique worldwide except in China. China was the first to form the basic pattern of three worlds; Chinese enterprises were the first to explore the three marketing logics that evolve in parallel in the three worlds; the three marketing logics derive three marketing tactics, and Chinese enterprises have been the first to innovate endlessly; the talents and new marketing organizations matching the three categories are being explored first by Chinese enterprises. Today, multinational corporations in China can no longer continue to play the role of marketing "mentors" as they did in the past. The "Chinese-style new marketing" being discussed, debated, researched, and practiced in all aspects and on a large scale will have a great opportunity to become a true innovator of classic marketing and a universal marketing methodology for Chinese enterprises and even traditional industry leaders (including Fortune 500 companies) in the "new international era." It is not that Chinese-style new marketing makes universal marketing special (or accidental, or bizarre), but that universal marketing allows Chinese-style new marketing to realize its due value, just as American classic marketing has played a role in the formation of world-renowned brands over the past few decades. The Historical Mission of Chinese-style New Marketing The 20th century was a typical American century, especially the international pattern after World War II. The United States achieved "victories" in three world-level wars (WWI, WWII, and the Cold War). The Marshall Plan for large-scale post-war aid to Europe and the reconstruction of Japan driven by the Korean War gave the United States strong capabilities for exporting goods, capital, and culture. One of the main symbols of the American century was the export of American brands. Among Fortune 500 brands in oil, automobiles, consumer goods, consumer electronics, etc., American brands account for two-thirds. It is worth noting that the weapons of American brand globalization are, first, capital and technology, and second, marketing. The benchmark role of excellent American companies like P&G, Coca-Cola, HP, Nike, and Adidas in the Chinese market should make Chinese marketers realize: Marketing is the vanguard of capital and commerce, and the soft knife of culture and politics. But our past understanding of marketing focused too much on the tactical level, lacking a macroeconomic and even macro-political perspective. This is small-pond thinking, not the river-and-sea thinking of "ruling the world." The essence of the Sino-US trade war is the reshaping of the world pattern, mainly reflected in commodity trade and capital shares, not territorial redivision. From a broader perspective and strategic direction, Chinese enterprises should seize the time window of this trade war to gain a position in the future world market. If one seriously studies the world economic and commercial history of the last 50 years, it is not difficult to see that the rise of European, American, Japanese, and Korean brands is a magnificent history of marketing conquest. Whether the 21st century is the Chinese century or a Sino-US dual century, all current Chinese brands must have a new mission: from the Chinese market to countries along the Belt and Road, and to dare to penetrate the bastions of capitalism (or market economies). Chinese-style new marketing is a theory that guides China's industry-leading enterprises from large to strong and interprets new marketing concepts to the world; it is a theory that gives the world a new lifestyle rich in Chinese elements; it is the underlying logic based on the harmonious coexistence of the three worlds. Without a macro perspective, without taking the rise of Chinese-style multinational corporations as a subject, and without aiming to establish a new underlying logic different from Western multinational corporations, it is impossible to create a Chinese-style new marketing theory. The Underlying Logic that Chinese-style New Marketing Needs to Break Through Reality and existing theories sometimes show astonishing inconsistencies. It is for this reason that theories continue to be innovated and must continue to be promoted. Topic 1: How can Chinese-style multinational corporations rise? How can they achieve longevity? Just as the formation of China's industry-leading enterprises is not entirely consistent with the logic of multinational corporations, China's industry-leading enterprises becoming multinational corporations will also have their own unique logic. The United States and other developed countries are secretive about their M&A and marketing behaviors toward Chinese enterprises, not because Chinese enterprises are powerful, but because they judge possible future impacts based on their own past logic. They, especially today's America, not only disregard WTO rules and blatantly restrict the legitimate marketing behaviors of Chinese enterprises, but also continuously smear China and Chinese enterprises in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. If China does not have its own well-founded discourse, and if Chinese enterprises do not have marketing theories independent of those of multinational corporations from developed countries, then the road of Chinese enterprises' transnational marketing will be very difficult. The reason Chinese enterprises can rise as a whole and establish global competitive advantages in mid-to-low-end manufacturing is, from a marketing perspective, that they pushed multinational corporations to the high end, thereby establishing competitive advantages in the mass market. Then, facing the domestic and global markets, after establishing technological innovation capabilities and high-value-added creation capabilities, should Chinese enterprises' strategy continue to focus on the mass market, providing higher and more satisfactory service levels to the masses, or, like multinational corporations, turn to competing and serving high-value-added markets (high-end groups)? This is a major theoretical topic. It concerns both the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the longevity of China's industry-leading enterprises. American technological strength has always been world-class. But after WWII, it lost many industry crowns, causing low-educated or ordinary workers to lose jobs. The reasons are related to the pursuit of high monopoly profits and the abandonment of mid-, mid-high, and mid-low-end markets. This led to today's manufacturing revitalization and huge trade deficit. What theoretical and cognitive traps exist here? China is a populous country. If this problem is not solved theoretically, cognitively, and practically, and if existing classic economic and marketing theories remain the cognitive basis, then as capital and technological strength increase, it is inevitable to repeat the path taken by multinational corporations. This implies an important judgment against mainstream understanding—that the business orientation of multinational corporations, which play a pivotal role in the national economy, has problems. Topic 2: In manufacturing, commerce, and consumers (customers), who holds the discourse power? The logic from the West, which has become consensus, is that discourse power is shifting from manufacturers to channel and retail merchants, and ultimately to consumers. In other words, manufacturers are losing and will inevitably lose discourse power, and this change is an inevitable trend and is correct. In fact, this rhetoric violates the most basic marketing principles. Transactions can only be sustainable when there is win-win and multi-win among stakeholders. In a competitive environment, confirming that discourse power must be in someone's hands is a false proposition. From the perspective of consumers voting with their money, when has ultimate discourse power not been in consumers' hands? Furthermore, when has consumers' discourse power truly become the sole basis for marketers' decisions? Americans like Chinese goods, but that does not prevent the Trump administration from raising tariffs on Chinese goods. Who is responsible for products and ultimately determines customer satisfaction—manufacturers, channel merchants, or retailers? How is customer discourse power reflected? In marketing logic, how is valuing customers and being customer-centric ultimately achieved? Providing a more realistic explanation is also an important theoretical topic. In the economic field, Western theories are full of specious arguments. The focus of solving this problem is to theoretically clarify the creation and distribution of value. Multinational corporations indeed create enormous wealth (value), but their greed for value capture has intensified social contradictions within developed countries and the rise of populism. Chinese manufacturing has been carrying a heavy burden since the reform and opening-up. In the first decade of reform, multinational brands and traditional Chinese advantageous brands occupied the only quality terminals, forcing township and private enterprises to develop marginal channels themselves. Entering the 1990s, manufacturing's efforts to build their own channels made great contributions to the development of Chinese commerce. The rise of supermarkets and hypermarkets gave manufacturing the classic question of "to enter or not to enter." The rise of e-commerce made manufacturing doubt its existence. The rise of supermarkets and e-commerce undoubtedly made great contributions to manufacturing, but it is also a fact that they relied on exploiting manufacturing to complete their primitive accumulation. In such a pattern of mutual undermining, can China really establish a strong economic foundation? Although this is directly related to the insufficient strength of Chinese manufacturing and cannot be blamed on other industries, it is also directly related to the immaturity of China's economic ecosystem, including social impatience, and even the evolution from a commerce-despising society to a commerce-respecting society. Value is created. Manufacturing holds a crucial position in the value creation process. Regarding value distribution, even leading manufacturing enterprises should not claim all the credit, let alone those who monetize value. All these issues must be solved theoretically and then conceptually. Topic 3: What is the relationship between industry-leading enterprises (multinational corporations) and followers and nichers? The United States and other developed countries are accusing Chinese enterprises of learning, introducing, and imitating. The question is, whether internationally or within a country, what is the value of industry followers? What is their basic survival logic? Over the past four decades, Chinese enterprises have all been followers: large enterprises follow multinational corporations, and small and medium enterprises follow domestic industry leaders. In a free competitive market, is this normal or abnormal? This also needs to be solved theoretically. From a global perspective, China has established competitive advantages in mid-to-low-end manufacturing. Compared with "Made in China 2025," overall, the problems in Chinese manufacturing are: 1. Insufficient innovation capability of local leading enterprises in most industries. Innovation capability insufficiency is mainly reflected in two aspects. First, their own intellectual property is insufficient to support their transformation from well-known brands (high brand awareness, high market share) to strong brands (high brand awareness, high market share, high brand added value, high imitation barriers). Second, their creative capability is insufficient to maximize brand premium (unable to escape price competition from imitators) and volume expansion (difficulty in using existing capabilities to add product categories, being "confined" to narrow business areas). 2. Because local leading enterprises cannot advance to high-end manufacturing, industry followers are compressed into more difficult survival situations. Market prosperity is largely determined by industry followers. Followers with some innovation capability meet mid-end and mid-low-end demands, while others meet low-end demands. When leading enterprises cannot market upward, they can only and will only squeeze followers to the maximum. Once followers are squeezed to the point of survival crisis, leading enterprises will suffer from low-price competition. At this point, the industry enters a competitive deadlock. This is exactly the real state of various industries in China today. Only when leading enterprises are good (having the capability and space to advance upward) will the overall industry be good. 3. Because the market is not active and prosperous enough, industry nichers are unable to expand their niches. Or nichers are also compressed into smaller spaces. The rise of e-commerce in recent years has benefited precisely from the above state of Chinese manufacturing. Industry followers and nichers cannot break through the suppression of leading enterprises in traditional channels. Some keen followers and nichers have taken advantage of the possibilities provided by e-commerce platforms to achieve significant breakthroughs. Some experts and scholars predict the decline of manufacturing brands, precisely based on this phenomenon and viewing it as an irreversible trend. Furthermore, challengers always emerge from followers, whether internationally or within a country. The reason countries enact antitrust laws is to eliminate non-free competitive pressures on challengers. The setting of intellectual property protection periods, from another perspective, is to allow peers to share the benefits of technological progress and promote overall economic development. The advanced exploit the backward—this is from the industrial chain perspective; the advanced "nurture" the backward (whether you like it or not)—this is from the perspective of industry competition. Trump and American politicians talk endlessly as if they are victims, which itself is a misunderstanding of the market economy and free competition they advocate. It seems they also need theoretical make-up lessons. Topic 4: In marketing and business management, how should we correctly handle the two capital attributes: private capital and social capital? Wise men like Marx and Drucker both denied the rationality of enterprises "taking profit as the purpose." They both discovered inherent conflicts. In the final analysis, when private capital accumulates to a certain extent, it transforms into social capital. The purpose of private capital is profit-seeking; the purpose of social capital is to serve the public. If enterprises, especially industry-leading enterprises, cannot achieve harmonious coexistence between the two, then the enterprise will eventually have problems, though we cannot yet predict exactly when and in what manner. From a marketing perspective, after the production concept, product concept, and selling concept, the marketing concept emerged, and then the societal marketing concept was proposed. The societal marketing concept appears as a new utopia in practice. It can be seen that although private capital must manifest as social capital after accumulating to a certain extent, its private capital attribute cannot be denied. Small and medium enterprises generally fall into the category of private capital, and their rise and fall are more about managers' wisdom, marketing, and management issues; the rise and fall of multinational corporations and industry-leading enterprises are not just marketing and management issues; social and public evaluation and managers' fundamental attitudes toward these issues have a greater and more far-reaching impact on their future. The wealth created by enterprises should be reasonably distributed among shareholders, employees, customers, and society (through taxes and donations), which is consensus under any social system. This also needs to be solved theoretically. Topic 5: Will social division of labor be further refined, or will it be obliterated? Based on the internet and mobile internet, there is a voice that obliterates division of labor, proposing that manufacturing should bypass commerce and directly serve consumers. These indeed reflect what is happening, but they may not necessarily be trend-setting inevitabilities that determine the future. Social division of labor will become increasingly detailed. Then, will the basic unit of future commerce manifest as "small but complete"? Theoretically, a relatively clear conclusion should also be given. At best, we have only proposed some propositions, hypotheses, or even just raised questions, far from scientific conclusions, systematic discourse, and rigorous logic. The purpose is to cast a brick to attract jade. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of reform and opening-up, using the magazine "Sales and Marketing" as a platform, we aim to set off a wave of theoretical innovation. (Author affiliations: Jin Huanmin, Zhengzhou Institute of Light Industry; Shi Xianlong, Chairman of Bona Ruicheng Consulting Company) Source: "Sales and Marketing" magazine, Management Edition, Issue 11, 2018 -END-