Friendly reminder: Click the blue text above, 'FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting,' to learn more about marketing and distributor internal management.

I remember at a sales meeting, a marketing manager said that sales is simple, and his method is 'simple selling.' Of course, it is right to 'despise the enemy' strategically, because objectively it allows us to relax, fully commit, and not be disturbed; but tactically, simple selling is not a good way to achieve goals. Many times, to achieve sales targets, 'simple' is not just a saying; the measure is not 'complex' or 'simple,' but effective.

Nowadays, many people like to be unconventional and shock with their words, which is another manifestation of the impetuous social mentality. Managers have collected many 'classic' quotes: simplicity is beauty; turning complex things into simple ones makes you a talent...

The author believes that sometimes, turning seemingly 'simple' things into 'complex' ones also makes you a talent! Haha, some might say this is asking for trouble, but it's not. In sales work, we often encounter people who think simply about doing things, following the rules without thinking; but when it comes to interpersonal intrigue, power, and profit struggles, they think deeply and rack their brains. This is like Professor Wang Liqun said: people who scheme about people. Such people are quite dangerous to enterprise marketing management because their minds are not on 'things.' If they were 'politicians,' it would be understandable, but in enterprises, while 'politicians' are not entirely unnecessary, in most cases, what is needed are people who do things down-to-earth. Therefore, enterprises fear such people the most.

Turning 'simple' into 'complex' is not asking for trouble; it is to penetrate from the surface to the essence, find the problem and its solution, which is the fundamental and the foothold.

For a small enterprise, a promotional activity can be completed with one piece of paper, such as roughly writing the current market situation, what we need to do, and how much money it will cost. That is a 'plan,' and one piece of paper is enough. Why? Think about it: the managers and owners of small enterprises are very familiar with their own market. Once you mention it, they roughly know what it is about. The plan does not need excessive analysis because everyone knows the key to the problem. They only consider three things: Can it be done? Does it need that much money? Is this method the most effective? Achieve simplicity, speed, and effectiveness, and it's OK.

For large enterprises, the hierarchy and management span are many and large. Top management cannot precisely grasp every market; they need research, analysis, and risk assessment. As the saying goes, 'A small boat can turn around easily, but a large ship, while its risk resistance is improved, is not so easy to turn around in the waves.'

Not long ago, I served a client. Every time we submitted a plan, the client's reaction was: always feel something is missing. In their classic words: always a bit short of breath. I asked why. They said they couldn't say, and didn't know why. Later, over time, I found the key to the problem.

It turned out that the plans we provided to the client were strategies and tactics derived from analyzing the problem, but the client always felt it was unnecessary, saying: just tell them what to do. In fact, the people below knew where the problem was, but when the plan went up, the leaders above did not necessarily know the key to the problem, so they felt the plan lacked 'persuasiveness.' That is, the leadership did not know why to do this, and why not do that! It is not surprising that they felt 'a bit short of breath.'

'Simple' is not our goal, nor is it the purpose. 'Simple' is only the most direct manifestation after we discard the false and retain the true, and discard the rough and retain the refined. Our only purpose is to solve problems.

The reason 'simple' is hard to achieve sales is not the fault of 'simple' itself, but the fault lies in the definition and analysis of the problem before executing the 'simple' tactic. If these are also handled 'simply,' then we abandon the real core of 'solving the problem.'

Once, I was responsible for such a market. Even now, I still remember the consequences caused by 'simplicity' at that time, and I still feel regret and pity, although it was not my mistake nor the result I could dominate.

At that time, the product had a certain awareness and influence locally. Consumers did not refuse to consume the product, but their loyalty was not high, so sales needed to be 'pushed.' It was under the guidance of this 'simple' problem that could not be simpler that all strategies and actions revolved around 'pushing' sales. Personnel recommendations, channel promotions, terminal gifts, consumer pull, etc. Unfortunately, once the activities stopped, it immediately returned to the starting point, even worse than before the promotion.

Such measures had been carried out for several years before I took over. Of course, in most similar regions, everyone did the same, as if no one thought more about it, believing the problem was that 'simple,' and beyond that, they were helpless—since it was already obvious, why bother to think more. This is also what we often call the 'frog effect'; on the other hand, it shows that if there is a strategic mistake, no matter how precise the tactics or how thorough the execution, the only result is: die faster.

Due to the 'simple' analysis of the problem, a simple conclusion of 'channel push' was drawn, but in reality, we did not see the essence of the problem through this phenomenon. The essence of the problem will be discussed later. This incident had a great and 'far-reaching' impact on my way of thinking and my mindset of not acting on experience. Sometimes, we must dare to question existing conclusions, no matter whose conclusions they are.

After the market was severely challenged, we began to re-examine the market. We divided it into several dimensions. First, why is the channel push not strong? Second, is the terminal acceptance high? Third, the consumer loyalty issue; Fourth, analysis of the product's price and profit system; Fifth, evaluation of original promotion and sales promotion.

After analysis, we found that there was only one real problem. That is, under the pressure of competitive brands, the price system was penetrated, and all levels of channel members, especially secondary wholesalers, had no profit to speak of; in other words, the product had severely aged.

This also makes it easy to understand why promotions boosted sales a bit, but once stopped, it returned to the original state. It was not because terminals and consumers did not accept it, but because the channel was unwilling to deliver for free.

Later, through the combination of new and old products, optimization of the dealer network, and adjustment of promotion and sales promotion policies, the market improved significantly.

Is 'simple' the most beautiful? Now it seems that when analyzing and finding key problems, it may not be so. But what is the final 'simple'? It is the 'three axes' after we find the key problem, namely: 'combination of old products, optimization of dealer network, adjustment of promotion and sales promotion policies.' This is the true beauty after 'simplicity.'

Don't expect to achieve sales with simple methods, whether you are a marketing manager in a company or in any other position and organization.