This article is an edited excerpt from Li Jiaoshou's (Li Jing) internal sharing on growth at the Chaos University Consumer Camp. Foreword: Regarding the issue of growth, there is a vicious cycle that many people, including myself, have encountered: the more you want growth, the harder it is to grow—the more you pursue growth and push yourself, the more you find yourself hitting a growth bottleneck, which in turn pushes you to further pursue growth and do things that deviate from user value, leading to a vicious cycle. This article attempts to study this cycle and the mindset behind it from another perspective, and I believe it will be valuable to you. When it comes to the topic of growth, the most common perspective is how to optimize efficiency, capture traffic, and achieve growth. The classic AAARR model well illustrates this mode of thinking. In recent years, countless companies have been immersed in this mindset: raising funds, acquiring users, monetizing revenue, refinancing, and then constantly finding ways to improve efficiency and capture more traffic. But over time, many people experience a sense of powerlessness and fatigue—feeling like they are running madly with a whip at their backs, yet despite their full effort, they struggle to achieve greater accomplishments. They continue to develop products, study traffic, optimize organizations, and improve capabilities, but they find it hard to break through, remaining stuck in place. At this point, you feel like you've hit a growth bottleneck. A typical phenomenon of entering a growth bottleneck is that the more you want growth, the further you are from the growth you desire. For example, a food brand on Taobao, after riding a wave of momentum, must continue to expand categories and rely on new products to drive new traffic to maintain growth. As a result, the production and sales scale of each raw material is low, failing to achieve economies of scale, thus unable to provide users with an exceptional experience. Increasing scale gradually erodes user trust. Moreover, this requires the company to frequently set up numerous project teams and adopt various workflows, increasing management complexity day by day, even making the founder doubt their management abilities. But there's no choice; I must grow, only growth can maintain momentum. Grit your teeth and push through; maybe it will get better. But often the opposite happens, leading to a vicious cycle. If described in one sentence, it's that we are kidnapped by what we want to own. We all know that the most important methods for growth are to innovate ahead of the trend, create excess value from the user's perspective to win word-of-mouth, and continuously accumulate and refine ourselves. But when a person is kidnapped by growth expectations, they lose these habits. They become speculative, following competitors rather than doing pioneering work; they calculate their own gains and losses daily rather than focusing on users; they grab resources and traffic rather than accumulating value. All of this distances them further from growth. A further vicious cycle is thinking that the problem is not being aggressive or hardworking enough, so they keep squeezing and pushing themselves, living in anxiety, tension, and fear of loss (commonly called FOMO in the industry), making it harder to do what they love and to focus, further losing their advantage. This is the most common cycle encountered in growth, and honestly, I have suffered from it deeply, constantly thinking about how to break through. I have found that the only way to break growth anxiety is to shift from a growth-seeking perspective to a value-creation perspective. Previously, my teacher Professor Ning Xiangdong recommended a classic TV drama "Yongzheng Dynasty" to me, and the plot of the Nine Sons' Struggle for the Throne was very enlightening. In the struggle during Kangxi's reign, the Crown Prince and the Eighth Prince were deeply trapped in this cycle. They desperately wanted to win the throne and did their utmost. To win the throne, they colluded with more and more ministers, attacked other competing princes, and avoided taking on difficult tasks (such as recovering treasury debts, which was thankless and politically risky). But in the end, this behavior of seeking the throne made them lose their most precious asset—the emperor's trust—thus distancing them further from the throne. In contrast, the Fourth Prince's strategic advisor Wu Sidao (known as the scriptwriter's avatar) proposed a key strategy that went against consensus but was truly effective, only eight words: "To strive is not to strive; not to strive is to strive"—when you want to fight for power, you distance yourself from the throne; when you don't fight and instead think about creating value for the Qing Dynasty, you win the emperor's trust. That is the greatest striving and the final victory. When the Fourth Prince viewed the competition for the throne from this different perspective, he naturally exhibited many distinctive behaviors (such as voluntarily taking on thankless tasks and not kicking the Second Prince when he was down at critical moments), which helped him ultimately win the throne. Of course, this deviates somewhat from historical facts, but it gave me great inspiration. Sometimes a shift in perspective can bring about tremendous change. The Fourth Prince's most distinctive strategy was shifting from a perspective of grabbing to a perspective of contributing. Similarly, facing growth anxiety and the long-term growth dilemma (short-term growth is easy; just do the math, but sustained long-term growth is truly very, very difficult), we can only break the deadlock by adjusting our perspective—I have always believed that changing the way we view a problem, rather than solving the problem itself, is often the most critical approach. And the hardest shift here is how to move from a growth-seeking perspective to a value-creation perspective, from "how do I get growth" to "how do I become someone worthy of being rewarded with growth." Only by entering such a perspective can we do things truly conducive to long-term growth—such as doing pioneering things in the face of huge trends; focusing on users and providing excess value; and accumulating for the long term. Otherwise, no matter how many methods you find or how many times you shout long-termism, it's useless, because the problem lies in the "heart," not the brain. So how do we shift this perspective? Once, I attended an event at Zengming Academy, where Professor Zeng Ming shared a viewpoint that greatly inspired me: the most important thing in strategy now is how to face the future and face users. In contrast, most companies and individuals actually start from facing the past, facing themselves, and facing resources, which is all a "grabbing perspective." To truly break free from this perspective, the hardest part is not methodology but three kinds of "courage": the courage to face the future rather than the past; the courage to face users rather than calculate gains and losses; the courage to accumulate value rather than grab resources; -01- The Courage to Face the Future Rather Than the Past I have always been curious about what makes some originally pioneering founders become conservative and stagnant, thus falling into growth bottlenecks. Recently, I talked with the founder of a consumer goods company that had reached a certain scale but was stuck in growth anxiety. He was extremely busy every day, busy securing more channels, establishing more co-branding partnerships, and searching for one cheap traffic source after another. But when I asked, "What is the most important opportunity in your industry in the next three years?" he suddenly froze. Yes, when he started his business a few years ago, he had a clear understanding of this question, but after reaching a certain scale, he began to lose his perception of future opportunities and insight into industry changes, driven by capital to frantically pursue scale. So what makes some pioneering people start to fall into bottlenecks? In the past period, I took some mind-body-spirit courses and found an important viewpoint: "How you understand your past determines how you face your future." I have participated in some company review meetings, where the most important part is reviewing the company's development history to inspire the future. I found that most of the time, it essentially asks this question: What did you persist in that brought you to where you are today? (The implicit assumption is that continuing to persist will create an even bigger tomorrow.) Then they summarize many methodologies, experiences, and values, which is not wrong and is quite rewarding, but then they decide what to do next and what not to do based on these historical summaries, which often leads to self-limitation. I remember in my first year of graduate school, I studied the Kodak case. I clearly remember that Kodak believed its key to success was adhering to imaging quality and performance (this belief also limited its entry into the digital camera market, which was more convenient but had relatively lower imaging quality). But this attribution is not factual. Kodak's initial success was because founder George Eastman developed a low-cost, convenient, but relatively low-performance camera that anyone could use, turning the camera from a professional tool into a mass product for the first time. Its initial success was not due to high quality but to seizing the technological trend to develop convenient products for a broader audience. What if, in our review meetings, we also asked another question: "What opportunities did you seize, or what did you break or create, that brought you to where you are today?" You would find the perspective completely different. I believe that almost every company and individual that has achieved success has, to some extent, made pioneering moves by seizing a trend and breaking conventions. But many people and companies forget this once they succeed, mistakenly believing they succeeded through repetitive routine actions, and expect that as long as they repeat these actions, improve efficiency, and correct shortcomings, success will come again as scheduled. When success doesn't come as expected, they further think that they are not hard enough on themselves, have too many shortcomings, or haven't persisted enough in their previous values and practices, leading to a cycle of conservatism and self-imposed constraints. Looking back, it's not wrong to think about "what we persisted in that brought us here," but we often overlook another perspective: truly massive growth must come from the push of huge momentum, from doing meaningful pioneering things under such momentum. Take the consumer goods industry as an example. Historically, successful large companies almost all befriended the most important momentum of their time, seizing huge trends through pioneering moves—new user groups and markets, new channels and media, new technologies, etc. For example, LV pioneered lightweight, durable travel trunks, seizing the opportunity of the spread of trains in 19th-century Europe; NIKE seized the rise of television broadcasting by sponsoring top stars; Sony seized the breakthrough in transistor technology to develop the Walkman, etc. Even the continued growth of some later companies came from seizing new trends and opportunities (e.g., LV later grew into a large group by seizing the huge trend of globalization and opening direct stores worldwide). This principle is so simple, yet so widely ignored. When we enter a perspective of pursuing growth rather than creating value, we particularly want to continue the high growth of the past, leading to the belief: As long as I am still yesterday's self, I can replicate yesterday's success. Based on this belief, we dare not try anything new, because once we try to change, we are no longer yesterday's self, and once we are no longer yesterday's self, we can no longer replicate yesterday's success. Even when making new attempts, we carry the heavy baggage of the past, fearing that without using past accumulated resources, we cannot achieve new success. For example, when smartphones began to prevail, Microsoft also saw this huge trend, but its idea was to develop a mobile operating system compatible with Windows software, rather than building the system entirely around the smartphone trend—this strategy greatly hampered the development of Windows Phone at the time. If we shift perspective, instead of pursuing growth itself, we focus on the long-term destination, seize trends to create a bigger future—doesn't it feel different? Apple developed the iPhone, which actually disrupted its own iPod, killing the iPod to support the old business with a new one. Procter & Gamble initially only sold soap. I think if P&G had positioned itself based on the past in the late 19th century, it would have been a soap maker, and the subsequent strategy might have been to focus on soap and deepen the soap industry chain, making it hard to see the P&G we know today; but if they saw the biggest momentum of the late 19th century as the rise of broadcast media driving the establishment of national brands, they would naturally discover there was even more space. Even when I studied history, I found that ancient Chinese culture, after the Southern Song Dynasty, lost its openness and began to define itself by the past, moving toward self-closure—things that met these standards were Chinese culture, and those that didn't were not, rather than remaining open, like the Han and Tang Dynasties, which could absorb any culture. An important judgment here is: do you think your past self or your future self is bigger? Only when you believe your future self is bigger, far bigger than what you have already created in the past, can you truly perceive trends and continuously create the future. Only then can you truly see market expansion, demand shifts, channel and media changes, and the momentum brought by technology penetration and popularization, and create value in line with this momentum. -02- The Courage to Face Users Rather Than Calculate Gains and Losses When we are in a mindset of pursuing growth rather than creating value, another typical phenomenon is falling into endless, repetitive evaluation and judgment, and no matter how you calculate, you can't find the optimal solution. For brands, should they do multi-branding or unify different products under one brand? If multi-branding, they can't reuse the previous brand's momentum and it seems too scattered; if they share one brand across product lines, according to positioning theory, it distorts positioning and perception. For internet companies, should they do a matrix of apps or one large flagship app? For consumer goods channels, should they focus on online or expand offline? But if you shift perspective to "If I want to solve the user's problem, what should I do?", you'll find the answer is easier to find. For example, brand strategy. In the TV advertising scenario, users watching ads and going to the supermarket to buy are separated. They need a brand to represent a category for easy memory, and they need a concise slogan, clear image, and clear benefit points; otherwise, they won't know how to choose when they get to the supermarket. At this time, you naturally need to focus on positioning. But sometimes, for example, when users buy snacks on Taobao, they want to buy more from one store, buy a big gift box to take home, preferably from one brand. Naturally, one brand represents multiple categories. Even whether you need a brand depends on the specific user problem you are solving. Gree needs a brand because the regret cost of choosing an air conditioner is too high, so users naturally need a stable brand to help judge; Moutai needs a brand because when I invite friends to dinner, I want to put a bottle of wine on the table, and friends know it's expensive, showing my respect without explanation, so I naturally need a brand with stable price and quality. This is a very simple common sense: the driving force behind growth must come from users' continued choice and use. But more often, when entering a growth-seeking mindset, we complicate simple problems, calculating the pros and cons of each decision for ourselves, and the more we analyze, the less clear it becomes. We reverse-engineer what we want to give users based on the benefits we need, and we become increasingly tired. An internet APP, based on data analysis, to reduce traffic costs, needs to increase frequency, so it adds many features users don't need at all. A group company, based on strategic analysis, needs to diversify to meet growth needs, so it forces itself into industries it's not good at, ultimately failing. A furniture company, based on benchmarking research, needs to increase customer dwell time in stores, so it learns from IKEA and opens multi-category experiential stores. But it ignores that IKEA's starting point was not to increase customer dwell time, but to solve the most important customer need when it rose: when I move to a strange city, how can I have a home in one day in a one-stop manner? This need may be completely different when transplanted to China. Yes, we often learn many "tactics" and "models" and calculate the value each brings to us, but we ignore what the most important needs of our most important customers are, and how to iterate ourselves based on those needs. We particularly want growth, but precisely because of that, we focus entirely on ourselves, calculating our own gains and losses, thus moving further away from customers. This is like the Eighth Prince in the Nine Sons' Struggle: every step he took was calculating his own gains and losses, rather than looking at what the Qing Dynasty and the Emperor needed, so he moved further from the throne. (Actually, this is also what I think is the biggest opportunity now—how to redo all products based on the needs of the new generation of users. Of course, due to space limitations, I won't elaborate on how consumer insight drives business, because the most important thing is not the method but this perspective. Here I can recommend Christensen's "Competing Against Luck".) -03- The Courage to Accumulate Value Rather Than Grab Resources Another typical behavior when trapped in growth anxiety is that all actions increasingly point to grabbing resources rather than accumulating value. The case of the Nine Sons' Struggle in "Yongzheng Dynasty" mentioned earlier is like this. The Crown Prince and the Eighth Prince, the more they feared not becoming emperor, the more they grabbed various short-term resources—such as gathering speculative ministers. This made them lose the most important and scarce value in the long run, which is the accumulation of the emperor's trust. I have observed many companies and individuals stuck in bottlenecks, including myself, exhibiting such behaviors. For example, a brand, the more anxious it is about growth, the more it will cut prices and promote, and give benefits to channels. Sales rise in the short term, but the brand's momentum is lost (e.g., after the Eight Regulations, many mid-to-high-end liquor brands cut prices and damaged their brands; almost only Moutai believed that brand is the most important asset and would not sacrifice brand and quality for sales). For example, a professional manager, the more anxious about promotion, the more they demand greater power and manage a larger business scope, hoping to prove themselves by doing things with such resources. This makes them do things poorly and lose trust. For example, an internet company, the more demanding it is about profitability, the more it calculates short-term ROI for every investment, not doing it if it doesn't break even. This makes it miss many opportunities for huge transformation and lose the possibility of greater long-term profitability (a friend told me that ByteDance's growth department often optimizes not ROI but the speed of seizing opportunities, because sometimes timing is the biggest cost). Actually, this is also a strange phenomenon: we spend too much energy grabbing infinite, flowing things, rather than focusing on truly scarce, unchanging things. For a prince, power is infinite; you can always get more if you strive, but the emperor's trust is scarce. For a brand, sales are almost infinite and change every year, but users' perception of your high-end brand is scarce. For a tech company, capital is almost infinite (there are always VCs waiting if you want to raise funds), but opportunities are scarce. Once you miss a major opportunity, you have to wait a long time for the next, and there's even a risk of being disrupted. What is the mindset behind this? It's that the more we pursue growth, the more we tend to seek comfort in data (comparing the prince's followers, the professional manager's power and reporting lines, the brand company's sales, the internet product's DAU). The more we seek this comfort, the easier it is to grab the most easily accessible resources, which are infinite and flowing—in other words, worthless. Then we enter a vicious cycle: we give up truly valuable things for worthless ones, our actual competitiveness decreases, growth becomes harder, and to alleviate anxiety, we further grab resources, and so on. To break this cycle, we must identify what is most scarce and least flowing in our current environment. Sometimes it's brand, sometimes data, sometimes scarce supply, sometimes talent. If our overall optimization goals are based on these, we will form positive value accumulation. -04- Conclusion One important reason why "sustainable growth" is so difficult is that once a person or company succeeds, they often stop doing the things that led to their success. Their initial success often came from being the first to face the future and seize opportunities when others were inertial; from deeply understanding user needs and designing all actions based on that when others weren't paying enough attention to users; from identifying key values and accumulating them when others were pursuing short-term resources. But later, when faced with huge growth expectations, they easily abandon value creation for growth, becoming conservative and facing the past, not focusing on users but calculating their own gains and losses, grabbing short-term growth data for security, and ultimately falling into a bottleneck. My biggest insight recently is that breaking this growth bottleneck cycle often requires a fundamental shift in perspective, from a growth-seeking perspective to a value-creation perspective, which requires great courage and faith. Source: Chaos University (ID: hundun-university), Author: Li Jing Tips will be paid 400-2000 yuan upon adoption.