---
title: "Liang Ning: The Only Trend Is Real Demand!"
description: "Today, China's population structure and patterns have changed, with 900 million people living in cities or relying on urban systems. Most people directly or indirectly engage with market and business rules to make a living. For a long time, China was an agricultural society, leading to a lack of systematic business common sense based on cities. In agricultural society, laborers accumulated common sense like the '24 solar terms,' which guided farming activities. This is common sense for survival within the system, and following it ensures better survival. We have also accumulated basic cognitions in business, but lack a complete thinking chain. Many who have scaled companies to a certain size also lack this, even if they succeeded before, it was through muddled success."
author: "梁宁"
publisher: "New Distribution"
email: "zhaobo258@gmail.com"
telephone: "+8615854817671"
published: "2024-12-07"
language: "en"
canonical: "https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/liang-ning-the-only-trend-is-real-demand-1245fb38/"
markdown: "https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/liang-ning-the-only-trend-is-real-demand-1245fb38.md"
original_source: "https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/nBaDI8MuueMUK_sHIyoQ6w"
translation: "https://xinjignxiao.com/zh/articles/%E6%A2%81%E5%AE%81-%E5%94%AF%E4%B8%80%E7%9A%84%E9%A3%8E%E5%8F%A3-%E5%B0%B1%E6%98%AF%E7%9C%9F%E9%9C%80%E6%B1%82-1245fb38.md"
attribution: "New Distribution — https://xinjignxiao.com/en/articles/liang-ning-the-only-trend-is-real-demand-1245fb38/"
usage_policy: "https://xinjignxiao.com/ai-policy.txt"
---

# Liang Ning: The Only Trend Is Real Demand!

> Today, China's population structure and patterns have changed, with 900 million people living in cities or relying on urban systems. Most people directly or indirectly engage with market and business rules to make a living. For a long time, China was an agricultural society, leading to a lack of systematic business common sense based on cities. In agricultural society, laborers accumulated common sense like the '24 solar terms,' which guided farming activities. This is common sense for survival within the system, and following it ensures better survival. We have also accumulated basic cognitions in business, but lack a complete thinking chain. Many who have scaled companies to a certain size also lack this, even if they succeeded before, it was through muddled success.

Today, China's population structure and patterns have changed, with 900 million people living in cities or relying on urban systems. Most people directly or indirectly engage with market and business rules and make a living within them. For a long time, China was an agricultural society, leading to a lack of systematic business common sense based on cities. In agricultural society, laborers accumulated a wealth of common sense, such as the natural common sense of the '24 solar terms,' through which we know when to plant melons and beans, and when to transplant rice seedlings and harvest wheat. This is common sense for survival within the system; following it ensures better survival. We have also accumulated some basic cognitions in the business field, but we lack a complete thinking chain. Many who have scaled companies to a certain size also lack it, even if they achieved it in the past, it was through muddled success.

**When a person does something new, they focus their attention, excitement, and passion on the point they are most excited about, spending all their time repeatedly on that point, while neglecting other aspects.** You may have succeeded or accumulated much business common sense through trial and error, but without a complete thinking chain or checklist, it's hard to replicate success. To this end, I interviewed product strategy expert Liang Ning. Below is the interview content.

**Entrepreneurship Requires Systematic Thinking**
I once introduced the concept of 'point-line-surface-body' strategic thinking in my 'Product Thinking 30 Lectures' on Dedao.

**1. Point: The relationship with the times is the bottom card of the business**
The current business is a 'point,' and it's the source of anxiety for countless people. Because of frequent anxiety, some so-called 'mind-body-spirit' mentors have emerged, urging us to focus on the present. Then the question arises: If we only focus on the present, why do companies make plans? Or put another way: Should companies pursue a second curve (focusing on the future) or tighten cash flow (only doing present things)?

For example: 100 years ago, when cars were just invented, horse-drawn carriages and cars coexisted. The earliest cars imitated carriages. If you were a carriage industry practitioner (say, making parts for carriages), should you start a second curve or tighten cash flow and serve your carriage customers well? Today, it seems the second curve is better. But without 'point-line-surface-body' thinking, like those so-called masters say—just do the present well—isn't that misleading? In this matter, as entrepreneurs, we must consider a key question: our relationship with the times. If what you do is a supporting part of an era, when a new era comes, you must jump ship. For example, when the Android era came, Symbian camp companies either jumped ship or abandoned the entire business. Huawei and Samsung jumped ship quickly, switching from Symbian to Android. Nokia essentially sank with the Symbian era. So, should you switch tracks in a new era? First, clarify the relationship between the new era and your business. With this thinking, we find some businesses are 'era-free,' like Japanese hot spring inns, century-old sushi shops, and Japanese temples (in Japan, temples are private property passed down through families, some over a thousand years old). They have no era-specificity. The so-called 'era-free' business means user needs and delivery are unrelated to the times. Soaking in hot springs has nothing to do with electricity or steam; visiting a temple has nothing to do with electricity, steam, internet, or AI. Why does Alibaba set the vision of 'becoming a company that lives 102 years'? Because it's an enterprise of its era, having fully benefited from the era's dividends to grow to such scale. It's like a company that served horse carriages, benefiting from the carriage's dividends. When the era shifts to a new one, maintaining the same scale across eras—i.e., a company wanting to transcend eras—requires huge choices. If a business or undertaking itself has no era-specificity, then you can follow the 'mind-body-spirit' mentors' advice to 'be steadfast in the present.' Whether it has era-specificity requires systematic identification, which is the 'point-line-surface-body' thinking.

**2. Line: The tension of time accumulation**
In mid-November, I followed Teacher Yu Minhong on the 'Sichuan-Yunnan Transverse Journey.' In this team, only I didn't have a short video account, and this trip turned into a fan-boosting journey for all participants, even the driver gained 50,000 fans. Teacher Yu is the source of traffic; everyone saw him coming and rushed to get in front of his camera, hoping fans would see them filming with Teacher Yu. I asked the driver: What can you do with 50,000 fans? He said: I can take commercial orders, earning over 2,000 yuan a month. I asked: So what? He said: If I reach 1 million fans, commercial orders won't be just 2,000 yuan. Let's not question whether he can reach 1 million fans; this is actually the relationship between point and line. A line is the cumulative effect formed over time.

**3. Surface: The cultivation of a unique user group**
Another example: The process of Notesman becoming a brand was also an era of overall public rise, with everyone seeking new knowledge on public accounts. Notesman found a very good positioning; so-called notes are actually the most essential knowledge. People follow Notesman to find the most essential knowledge. Therefore, Notesman cultivated a unique user group; otherwise, since few people watch long videos, would anyone habitually read articles over 5,000 words on Notesman? Thus, a surface is a phenomenon that occurs only with a unique user group.

**4. Body: The fit between internal efforts and external environment**
Today, reading habits and knowledge acquisition habits have changed; the biggest increment is no longer public accounts. At this time, I also need to think: What is the new era? So, from surface to body is actually the relationship between internal efforts and the external environment. Some things can be achieved through internal efforts, while others are external; you must adapt to external changes. Of course, leveraging externalities might be another capability. So, whether to hold cash flow or develop a second curve hinges on whether your business sector is stable or inevitably changing.

**The Triangular Model of Real Demand**
For anyone doing business, this business closure model is like standing practice, very common sense. But as long as you ponder and apply it day after day, it will surely lead to deeper understanding. Value can be subdivided into many types, like functional value and emotional value. The reason to distinguish value, consensus, and model is based on years of experience leading companies in product polishing, strategy formulation, and evaluation.

**1. Value: Functional, Emotional, Asset**
I divide value into **functional value, emotional value, and asset value**. If a product's value isn't established, it's best to adjust early and start over. Some products have established value, but the market doesn't start, sales are poor; then you need to continuously polish the product, clarifying what the product value truly is, like a value formula. When defining a product, there may be cases where the product has no value. For functional products, the classic saying is 'cannon fodder,' because functional value mainly competes on efficiency, like carriages compared to advanced vehicles. If you're at a disadvantage in functional value, you'll be eliminated sooner or later; you should cut losses timely, not just focus on the present. The classic saying for emotional value is 'mink nail.' Companies easily fall into self-congratulation, like using a bunch of raw materials and piling up useless concepts; there are many such products. When companies define products internally, each point seems good—like rare raw materials, blank market—but the actual product has no value. In such cases, there's no need to polish further; throw it away and start fresh. What is asset value? Economics has complex explanations, but I think asset value lies in sustainable monetization. Sustainable monetization requires two conditions, so asset value needs two conditions:

**First, a secondary market with sustainable monetization and supporting services;**
**Second, the price and value in the secondary market depend on a certain consensus.**
So, I also divide innovation into functional innovation, emotional innovation, and asset innovation. The core of functional innovation is technology, improving efficiency through technological investment. All technological progress brings efficiency gains. For many enterprises, investing in technology and efficiency may face manpower shortages; limited by their own endowments, even with effort, they can't reach the top level, just as we can't outrun Olympic champions no matter how hard we try. But we can't keep using Stone Age products to serve modern society's needs. At this point, companies must consider the effectiveness of innovation investment; if funds are limited and scientific breakthroughs and efficiency improvements are hard to achieve, then find a suitable way to survive. If a company believes maintaining the product unchanged can sustain survival, even if it's in a non-trendy, non-era industry, it should keep pace with the times and respond to current service demands. So, real demand is something you must achieve yourself; otherwise, you'll fall into learned helplessness, where even struggling has no effect.

**2. Consensus: Identifying User Imagination and Usage Scenarios**
  * **External Consensus**
Some products are okay themselves, but market consensus hasn't formed. The key is identifying specific users' imagination and related scenarios. In Guangzhou, I heard a case about women's sports bras. Usually, sports bras emphasize 'support' and similar points. This company used Lululemon's OEM factory, and the product was much cheaper than Lululemon. Initially, their promotional copy highlighted functional features like good support, sweat-wicking, breathability, etc., which were indeed good. Because the OEM factory is large and requires a minimum order, they directly made 30,000 pieces, not just a small batch. After launch, the product didn't sell, and they panicked with 30,000 units in inventory. Then they approached Xiaohongshu influencers, giving 100 influencers products without requirements, just asking them to post if they liked it. These influencers are sensitive to fan interaction and know what content interests fans. As a result, 90% of influencers found that the real selling point was 'brightening skin tone,' while their earlier points like support and breathability didn't work. So they switched the product's functional value communication point, and sales immediately rose. This involves the pain points, itch points, and consensus issues mentioned earlier. The key is understanding user imagination—what kind of product do users want? From a scenario perspective, for clothing and beauty products, selfies are one of the core scenarios in this era; ignoring it loses a core scenario for attracting new users. This product's value was established, but market consensus hadn't formed, so it didn't sell because the original selling points weren't what users needed. After switching to points that fit user needs, market consensus was quickly reached, and the product sold well.

  * **Internal Consensus**
Internal consensus is the reason a community forms; because of consensus, people stay in a community; without it, they gradually leave. How does a company form its internal mass? It requires internal management. Two situations make consensus easier: **First**, during war, war unites consensus because everyone faces a common enemy; **Second**, during growth phases, everything is fine in the face of growth; people first think about grabbing the new increment.

**3. Model: User Needs Don't Mean You Can Make Money**
  * **Wrong Business Model, Even with Value, Won't Work**
The reason for a model is that in any mature market, demand is often public, and supply products are similar, like anyone can use Lululemon's OEM factory. Take coffee as a model case: Making an Americano, everyone can do it by pressing a coffee machine; everyone can make such a product. But making a company like Starbucks or Luckin is different. Then it's not about demand and value but about the model of how to survive and make money. We find immature entrepreneurs always think that innovation—creating new value, new functions, new emotions, new assets—will naturally bring money. But actually, making something others need doesn't mean you'll earn money; you need a suitable business model. At this point, it's crucial to examine whether your value truly holds. Brand and product are like a person's name and the person themselves; famous people must be worthy of their name, not just having a name but doing a series of things. Companies can't just shout about building a brand; they must build it through a series of excellent products. So, when the product itself is poor, like the 'cannon fodder' disadvantage mentioned earlier, but you insist on packaging it as a 'hero,' it won't work. Products are often bound to their era, while works can transcend eras. Products are often bound to their era, like items in museums—they were once used in specific eras, but as those eras passed, they were sealed in museums and gradually eliminated from society. Many things around us now might end up in museums and be eliminated in about 100 years, so products are indeed limited by their era. Works can transcend eras, like Da Vinci's paintings, 'Dream of the Red Chamber,' and poems from the 'Book of Songs,' which have almost no era limitations. However, books like methodology are often limited by their era. Everything in the city can be seen as products, all created by human minds. Because without people's needs, there would be no city, no roads, or anything in the city. In the city, changes from a tree to a flower bed, then to a concrete platform, are all due to changes in people's needs. And when it disappears one day, it means people no longer need it. Without demand, there's no value; value is just a presentation of demand.

  * **There Are No Industries That Don't Make Money, Only Business Models That Don't**
The more a company struggles on the production line and survival line, the more it should study models. Because well-run companies have correct models.
Actually, there are no industries that don't make money, only business models that don't. Take the pandemic period: For example, the homestay industry was hit hard, but some companies still profited. The industry is the same, but some can't survive while others can. As long as relevant demand exists, there will be corresponding trades, and these trades evolve with the times; the era endows them with new capabilities through infrastructure, providing overall social capabilities. Society changes, but industries can persist, indicating that both demand and value exist. Having demand is one thing; making money is another; making money depends on the business model. So, the more a company struggles on the production line and survival line, the more it should study models. Since demand exists, not making money is a business model problem, not a demand problem. When discussing with others, I first clarify whether we're discussing value, consensus, or model. Whether there's demand, first consider if value holds; if not, think early and be free. If value holds, like the underwear example, maybe you haven't found the key breakthrough point initially, but once found, you can break through. After breaking through, whether you can earn money is another matter; even if you satisfy others' needs, whether your own survival and development needs are met is still a question.

**Inner Order Is the Starting Point of Everything**
**1. Learn to Be 'At Ease'**
When observing a person, I look at several points, one being: Why do they get angry? That is, what things can't you 'tease' them about? When teased, they get angry. They get angry because it's a part they can't self-accept; if that point didn't exist, they wouldn't get angry because it has nothing to do with them. With this thing, they can't self-accept, so they get angry, furious, fearful, or anxious—this is a lack of inner order. So why is my new book called 'Real Demand'? How can you see user needs? If you can't be honest about your own needs, you can't see others' needs either. Because you live in a evasive manner, unable to face your own situation and others' needs frankly and truthfully.

At a sharing session, a participant asked me: In the AI era, there are some niche category needs, but we can't find cooperative developers because these AI developers look down on us. What should we do? This is actually an interesting question, essentially saying: I want to do something, but the people I want to find look down on me. I told him: For this problem, we should learn from Li Xiang, founder of Li Auto. He dropped out of high school to start a business, founding PC POP in Shijiazhuang, Hebei. He set a principle: Everything he did must be completable by people earning within 3,000 yuan. If a task's complexity and difficulty are too high for people within 3,000 yuan, then break it down into smaller tasks that they can do. Why this principle? At the start, he was a teenager who hadn't finished high school; he thought anyone asking for over 3,000 yuan would look down on him. So, he didn't think he needed to hire a very capable person; what he needed to do was break down difficult tasks into ones that people under 3,000 yuan could do, because such people are always available, so he wasn't afraid of losing anyone. Much of our anxiety is fear of losing control: What if the person I rely on leaves? What if they suddenly express dissatisfaction? Li Xiang's approach at least shows a kind of frankness. He knows his situation, knows who needs him, and who might leave him. Knowing these, he knows how to keep himself safe. Later, Autohome listed in the US, and those who once earned 3,000 yuan a month became people with 10,000, 1 million, or 10 million, including many well-known car influencers now. What is building inner order? It's like a seed; if the environment is suitable, it sprouts because it's a living thing, knowing its origin. Any entrepreneur, any ordinary person, in this chaotic and changing era, you need to know why you can survive? What are others' needs? What are your own needs? If you can't face your own situation and needs, always deceiving yourself, then the most anxious people are those who deceive themselves. Because they fear that if the truth is exposed, they'll be abandoned, so they desperately cover up, making things harder and harder, and they become more fearful.

A book shouldn't be a methodology; it's actually a spiritual product. I'm not someone who advocates success studies, so what do I want to deliver? Later, I figured it out: I actually want to deliver 'at ease'—satisfying user needs while also satisfying my own real needs. No matter how good it is, if I'm not at ease every day, I can't persist. Therefore, to some extent, the comfort zone has its merits. Having been in this industry for a long time, I've met many entrepreneurs; I can tell at a glance whether someone is in an 'at ease' state. Countless people suddenly trend on hot searches, become famous, show their faces, and then suddenly disappear. Why? Because they're not at ease; when the scale grows, more connections come, and all the expectations, dissatisfaction, and resentment from everyone come out. They can't face the sudden demands, rejection, contempt, dissatisfaction, and resentment, and then they can't bear it. And those who stay in one place are because they're at ease in that situation.

**2. Clarify the Internal and External Worlds**
Some companies have survived on the dividends of the previous era, but now their products aren't accepted by the market, and old businesses are clearly declining. This is a problem with the relationship between value and demand; the original model may be 'stuck,' and value doesn't hold. For some founders, cutting off a limb to survive is often a difficult but possibly necessary choice. However, the pain entrepreneurs face is: If I cut the business, what about the employees who've worked for years? It's hard to lay them all off. Many can't bear to clearly sort out the people and things in their 'internal world.' Like the situation at home with a partner, sometimes people argue about why they stay together when things are bad; this also involves a person's internal world, that complex mix of emotions and relationships, which is hard to simply handle or cut off.

Our world is divided into external and internal worlds. Real demand belongs to the external world; it considers how enterprises deliver products to meet market demand. Products are like a test paper that enterprises hand to the market. Remember, no enterprise exists solely to serve users; as a 'life' form, enterprises primarily aim to survive themselves. So, enterprises must identify which market needs them, clarify what the market needs, and then hand in a qualified 'test paper' to exchange for resources that allow them to survive and develop. The entire process revolves around real demand, which is essentially a relationship between the enterprise and the external world. So, demand is the relationship between me and the external world. The small world is one's internal world. Breaking up with someone, divorcing, resigning, or firing employees—these situations, on the surface, like firing an employee, might involve only a few thousand or tens of thousands of yuan, not a big amount, but it's painful because it means removing a person from your internal world, and you were also part of their internal world. The external world is relatively less close to us; everyone mainly lives in their own small world, the internal world. So, for some people, when facing business decline, the key isn't abandoning the business itself but handling the internal world issues about personnel. For someone like Dong Yuhui, who has huge traffic and scale, although there's a vast external world, like the support of many 'mother-in-law groups,' whether it can develop into a large company depends on the construction of its internal world. The development and stability of enterprise scale largely depend on good internal world construction; for Dong Yuhui, how to build the internal world is what he needs to think about now.

**Entrepreneurs Are the Trendsetters of the Era**
Recently, 'Small Alley People' has been quite popular. In that era of material scarcity to abundance, the three brothers in the show made money by trading goods, feeling that opportunities for entrepreneurs were quite fair in that context. But now, for ordinary people, it seems hard to replicate the entrepreneurial model from the show.

**1. Each Generation of Entrepreneurs Has Its Own Era Imprint**
The fifth-generation entrepreneurs is a concept proposed by Ke Zhou, founder of Notesman. The three brothers in 'Small Alley People' are actually first-generation entrepreneurs, characterized by instinct-driven behavior. In times of material scarcity, the core task was finding goods, relying on boldness; whoever could find goods could trade. Second-generation entrepreneurs showed characteristics of keenly identifying core resources. In the context of China's nationwide public ownership, many resources were concentrated in government hands. This led them to see the key to business as obtaining resources from the government through connections, backdoors, and treating guests, then monetizing these resources. Whether it was reselling approvals, materials, or contracting projects, the core action was around obtaining and utilizing these resources for business activities. Third-generation entrepreneurs emerged from the 1990s, represented by Liu Chuanzhi and others. Their characteristic is developing in a semi-planned, semi-market economy. On one hand, they understood some features of the planned economy, like the shielding effect that creates market barriers, leaving exploitable spaces and market gaps. On the other hand, they actively embraced the market economy. Many of China's famous large enterprises today were founded and developed by third-generation entrepreneurs under this mixed model. However, this also became a source of controversy later, as some believe they took advantage of the planned economy. Fourth-generation entrepreneurs emerged with the rise of the internet, characterized by productism. The first three generations were in an era of supply scarcity, so productism wasn't important; having goods was enough, regardless of quality, like TVs or down jackets; as long as they existed, they were accepted. Old TV brands like Panda might have poor quality by today's standards, but at the time, having a product was envied. From the internet era onward, it's different. Ma Huateng, Lei Jun, and Zhang Xiaolong are representatives of fourth-generation entrepreneurs; before them, few emphasized user experience and user relationships. They focus more on user experience, user relationships, product quality, etc., which is a key manifestation of productism. They gain market competitiveness through meticulous polishing of product details and user feelings. Fourth-generation entrepreneurs are characterized by 'borrowing'; they borrow foreign new products, models, and technologies, using 'borrowing' to replicate in the Chinese market, making it hard to do technological, application, or experience innovation, so local original products are scarce. Now, China has emerged with a batch of distinctive enterprises that achieve original technology, original products, and original experiences. These enterprises innovate based on deep insights into the market and industry, with genuine and unique understanding, rather than simply imitating others. Examples include DJI in drones, Huawei in communications and smartphones, TikTok in short video social media, and Fotile in home appliances. Their original achievements not only succeed domestically but also export globally. This is the original spirit of fifth-generation entrepreneurs. The most painful now are first, second, and third-generation entrepreneurs. They started in an era of supply shortage, where having goods meant selling, so they weren't trained to identify market demand, new technology, new efficiency, or new experiences. Most only thought about getting goods and then using marketing to persuade customers to make money. This is also why the entrepreneur or merchant group has been stigmatized, with outsiders mistakenly believing that all merchants and entrepreneurs operate through connections, backdoors, and bribery. But that's not true; this is one reason I wrote 'Real Demand.' Over the past decades, China's business practices have not only created products for society but also created employment and wealth for themselves, and we have actually produced business rationality based on Chinese local practice. Our business thought and rationality match our business achievements. For fifth-generation entrepreneurs, they're not painful in this era; they're even overjoyed. They serve 8 billion people on Earth, and these enterprises have created 5 million jobs. Five million people are in overseas business, and many European countries don't even have 5 million people. They've found opportunities overseas, found ways to do things. So, they're not painful; the truly painful are traditional enterprises.

**2. Product Changes Reflect Demand Changes**
The first three generations pursued large scale and low gross margins, so products were cheap and rough, pushing products to channels and letting channels figure out sales. Some large domestic enterprises have no contact with users; they think they're customizing products for channels and big clients. To consumers, they're very arrogant, not just arrogant but greedy. They were already in industries earning money lying down, yet they wanted to lie more comfortably and earn more. Isn't that greed? What's the environment now? Is there still space for simple, rough, large-scale demand? No. Now, deeper, more specific, more beautiful, and more agile demands are everywhere; it just depends on whether you're willing to do it. Looking back at a century of product evolution, functional value products have been integrating, while emotional value products have been differentiating. Simply put: **Tools are becoming more integrated, and emotional consumption is increasing.**


---

## Copyright and AI use

This article is sourced from New Distribution. Search, quotation, summarization, and model training are permitted, but every use must credit New Distribution and retain the canonical source URL.

Contact: zhaobo258@gmail.com · +86 158 5481 7671