Source: Lao Miao Tears Marketing (ID: yiheyingxiao)

"New consumption" is the hottest business term of the past two years, bar none.

Some see new consumption as an unstoppable trend, and not following it means death; others see it as a big scam, tricking you into advertising spending, buying courses; still others see it as a pseudo-concept, just a variant of previous internet-famous brands and traffic brands, old wine in new bottles.

All these views have some merit, but to truly understand the "new consumption boom" of recent years, you must place it in a larger, more macro context, or you'll be led astray by the massive linguistic corruption generated each year.

Lao Miao once made a point: our marketing is very backward. Specifically:

In areas requiring higher technology, higher barriers, and greater investment, we are catching up or even surpassing. Semiconductors, large aircraft, aircraft carriers, aerospace, cloud computing, internet infrastructure—China has already taken a pivotal position globally, and people marvel, "Awesome, my country!" with a surge of pride.

Our manufacturing chain is also the most complete globally. We can break down a disposable lighter into an industrial manufacturing chain, coordinated by several enterprises, with costs so low that the retail price is still one yuan. We turned low-end manufacturing that Westerners abandoned into a high barrier, where no one else can match our cost efficiency.

When the former President launched a trade war to choke us, they found they couldn't gain much advantage. This capability is unique in the world.

Only in the consumer brand sector have we been utterly defeated. Anything related to consumption—whether food, beverages, cosmetics, clothing, milk powder, or home appliances—we lose to foreign brands even on our home turf. Even tea is ground down by Lipton. Tobacco and liquor have special policies and regulations; otherwise, they'd fare no better.

Luxury goods are even worse; we have no place at all. Many consumers feel that a hint of "Chinese flavor" means "a drop in class."

Shoes made in Putian, if painted with the Nike swoosh, are "high-end"; if they're a domestic brand, they're low-class.

Many Chinese people register brands abroad, return to pose as "foreign devils," and sell at high prices to Chinese consumers.

The CSRC questioned Mousse Furniture: "Who is that old foreign man with a pipe in all your ads?"

There are also Oude Flooring, Mark Fairwhale clothing, etc.—all local enterprises wrapped in a "foreign skin."

Worse is the "X Dan" sports shoe brand, which rides on trends but then denies it, claiming it's a table tennis paddle image. Do you believe that yourself?

These genuinely local enterprises, when exposed, claim to be "national enterprises." Which nation do they represent? Does the "nation" they forcibly bind themselves to agree?

And the things these consumer brands do have never brought us honor.

We won't mention the distant melamine incident, but recently, there's a batch: Lenovo has been criticized as "American conscience" for charging higher prices domestically than abroad for the same configuration; a Mengniu executive said they put their best products in Hong Kong and Singapore; even Moutai's prices abroad are far lower than domestic.

Are foreign brands really more ethical, more "artisan," and truly high-end? Give me a break!

Canada Goose's controversy is still fresh; in the first half of 2021, the Xinjiang cotton incident involved Nike and Adidas; Samsung's phone explosions and arrogant PR were key to its retreat from China; and some international auto brands have long had double standards for the Chinese market, causing occasional outrage.

So, our consumer brands have never brought us honor. You can't simply attribute this to Chinese consumers being "cheap" or "worshipping foreign things," or to Chinese consumer companies being "unethical." There are deeper reasons behind it.

Understanding this reason and solving this problem will give rise to vibrant "new consumer brands," not fleeting "internet-famous brands."

Let's stretch the timeline and look at some data. Which consumer brands have repeatedly crushed us in the Chinese market? Let's name a few: Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, L'Oréal, Apple, Hermès, Mondelez, Toyota, Uniqlo. What year were they founded? We won't check Kodak or Nokia.

A quick search reveals: 1886, 1837, 1907, 1976, 1837, 1903, 1933, 1984. The oldest are P&G and Hermès, over 180 years old; the youngest are Uniqlo and Apple, one from the 80s, one from the 70s, around forty years old.

What does this mean? To borrow a phrase from state media: "There are no enterprises of the era, only enterprises of the era."

These old foreign consumer brands mostly emerged after the Second Industrial Revolution, when productivity surged and materials went from relative scarcity to relative abundance.

That's the big premise.

Supply-side alone isn't enough; these brands also needed to stimulate demand. Here's a key term: "consumerism."

Everyone knows this term—it's about finding ways to make you spend more.

To be clearer, let's expand a bit.

Years ago, there was a popular saying: "Consumption is patriotism."

The idea: if you "buy, buy, buy," small vendors earn more, distributors earn more, manufacturers produce more, earn more, and hire more; everyone earns more, and then they all "buy, buy, buy," and eventually everyone earns more.

If we all act together and "buy, buy, buy," our economy will develop rapidly, and the motherland will prosper quickly.

Impressive, right? Doesn't it feel like pulling your hair to lift off the earth, like the martial arts secret of stepping on your left foot to fly?

Actually, this is Keynes's "paradox of thrift," one-sidedly interpreted by capital and consumerists. They twist it to their liking to advocate consumerism.

They go even further, directly attacking human nature to stimulate consumption—like exploiting laziness, greed, lust, and the love of shortcuts—or creating a "consumer goods contempt chain." Anything with social attributes has a contempt chain.

Drinking, driving, using phones, children's schooling and tutoring—these are hotbeds of contempt chains.

The "contempt chain" uses social comparison psychology to stimulate insecurity and fear, creating anxiety to make you buy, buy, buy.

Another key term is "consumerist discourse hegemony." Lao Miao discussed this in an article about Moutai.

What to eat is high-class, what to wear is fashionable, what to drink is upscale, what to live in is not degrading, what kind of life is quality—these are all defined by brands that have already reached the pinnacle of branding.

If you think cola tastes bad, your palate isn't international; if you think diamond rings aren't worth it, you're unfaithful to love; if you think thick eyebrows and big eyes are attractive, your aesthetic is too rustic—you need to look like Chen Man to be "high-end."

After all this, we can summarize.

Consumer brands differ from B2B brands and high-tech products. Besides pursuing practical value, they also pursue emotional value and have social attributes. Consumers easily link what they consume with who they are.

Foreign consumer brands, developed over decades or centuries, defined the emotional value of consumer goods long ago, stood at the top of the consumption contempt chain, and held the consumerist discourse hegemony.

Chinese consumer brands underperform because we've been building brands under a discourse system defined by others.

For a long time, domestic consumer brands could only rely on low prices to capture third- and fourth-tier markets. Once prices matched or exceeded international brands, they were easily rejected. And once domestic brand users had a bit of money, they often switched to international brands.

Li Ning, riding the national trend wave, communicated effectively with the younger generation and achieved rapid growth, but once prices matched Nike and Adidas, sales quickly suffered.

The new consumer brands emerging in recent years—food, cosmetics, beverages, dairy—still set mainstream prices below international brands or focus on categories international brands can't cover.

Head-on competition is impossible. The discourse system is there, consumer perceptions are fixed; for the same product, consumers think foreign brands are better. Just like Moutai must be known as Moutai to taste good.

How to change this?

Individual enterprises can't change it, even if they unite.

With basic nutrition knowledge, we know foreign eggs and local eggs have no nutritional difference, but can you convince your grandparents to buy only foreign eggs?

With basic biology knowledge, we know skin's biological function is a barrier and can't absorb external substances, but can you convince your wife to stop using foreign cosmetics and switch to Child's Face?

Moutai and Laobaigan both mainly contain alcohol; if comparing hangover effects, Laobaigan is better (fewer fusel alcohols), but for important business receptions, would you dare serve Laobaigan instead of Moutai?

Positioning theory tells us: Marketing battles are fought in the customer's mind. What you are doesn't matter; what consumers think you are matters. And minds are the hardest to change.

Building new consumer brands isn't just about enterprises; the key is forming social consensus.

How is social consensus formed? First, align with national strategy.

There are only enterprises of the era, not eras of enterprises. In a socialist market economy, national strategy has a huge influence on the era, even able to change and reverse it.

We must understand a big premise: Consumer brands are highly dependent on national brands.

As the saying goes, "In literature, there's no first; in martial arts, no second." B2B brands and high-tech products are martial: my engine performs better, my computer runs faster, my missiles hit more accurately, or my costs are lower—these are hard standards, objective, not subject to subjective judgment.

But consumer brands are different; they're literary. Standards have objective parts but more subjective parts. Whether clothes look good, wine tastes good, bags are high-end, or cars give face—subjective feelings come first.

We wouldn't think Zimbabwe could produce a luxury bag, that Lao food is high-end, or that Afghan lifestyle is tasteful.

Similarly, we've always felt European and American brands are high-end, stylish, and better at showcasing a quality life. Japanese products are refined, artisan, and ingenious.

But our own brands clearly struggle to convey that.

Even though our consumer goods manufacturing is number one globally, and many foreign giants can only do better through Chinese manufacturing.

It's not that we lack strength, but time and philosophy.

Time is lacking because we've been a manufacturing and economic power for too short a time; consumers can't yet link high-quality products and lifestyles with Chinese brands.

Philosophy is lacking because we still live in a consumerist-driven commercial society, under the "consumerist discourse system" defined by traditional international brands.

Every brainwashed consumer, like a virus carrier, spreads the defined consumerist ideas and standards to those around them.

In fact, in consumption advocacy, we've already begun to diverge from Western consumerism.

Remember the earlier "consumption is patriotism"?

Such consumerist nonsense, once it appears here, gets criticized by authoritative media.

We've always advocated "more, faster, better, cheaper" and "thrift is patriotic."

In 2020, from top leaders to state media, there was a strong push to "save every grain of food" and create a society where "waste is shameful, thrift is honorable." This isn't because food is scarce, but a thorough anti-consumerism stance.

Let's not even mention the "Eight Regulations." This year, the state shut down the tutoring industry, a trillion-yuan consumer market, just like that. Unimaginable to consumerists.

Our advocacy for expanding domestic demand and economic internal circulation differs from consumerist stimulation; it's built within the framework of pursuing common prosperity.

The key to internal circulation isn't fooling people into spending more, but enabling them to spend for a better life. Common prosperity isn't robbing the rich to help the poor, but through fairer social distribution mechanisms, curbing wealth polarization, limiting "social comparison psychology," and reducing "greed, anger, ignorance" in people's hearts. This is fundamentally anti-consumerist.

So, our economic reform emphasizes "supply-side reform" more. Make production more efficient, increase valuable innovation, naturally raise workers' incomes, naturally increase consumption, and the more truly valuable products, the more consumers buy again and again.

In contrast, demand-side stimulation incites comparison, showing off, addictive desires, greed, laziness, and extravagance.

The result is everyone feels short of money, feels poor, while wealth rapidly flows to capital that creates consumption traps. Wealth gaps widen, and social instability grows.

Consumerism and capitalism are twin brothers.

When consumerism runs rampant, most of society becomes unbalanced, breeding jealousy, complaints, hatred, and resentment of the rich. Those who amass fortunes by fanning consumerism, though living luxuriously, hide the fear of "hanging from lampposts."

Traditional consumer brands uphold consumerist ideology; they want people to use consumption to label themselves socially. They unscrupulously promote consumption, even proposing politically correct slogans like "consumption is patriotism."

In expanding consumption, they focus on demand-side stimulation, going to any lengths to incite desires and exploit human weaknesses.

Moreover, traditional consumer goods have formed a complete "consumerist order," dictating what consumption is high-end, what is rustic and low, what is beautiful, what is ugly, what is tasteful, what is tacky.

New consumer brands that come later find it hard to surpass them within this discourse system.

True new consumer brands are anti-consumerist; they focus on meeting real customer needs, advocate value consumption and thrift, and oppose the brainwashing, anxiety-inducing, IQ-tax-collecting tactics of traditional consumer brands.

In stimulating consumer demand, new consumer brands focus on the supply side, using cost reduction and efficiency to offer higher cost-performance. Through product innovation and category innovation, they bring better experiences and higher consumption value, thereby raising overall social consumption.

Those methods that exploit human weaknesses are just superficial "tactics."

Pursuing comfort is part of human nature, but the fundamental driver of increased consumption has never been extravagance. It's the steam engine, generator, computer, mobile internet—these great technological inventions and their widespread adoption.

Ordinary enterprises can't achieve such great technological innovation, but using innovation to create better consumption experiences, better cost-performance, and unique value is our foundation for survival.

In fact, the original "consumerist discourse hegemony" will gradually dissolve as younger consumers grow up.

As people's thinking improves and spiritual life becomes richer, we increasingly don't need to define ourselves through consumption or show our existence by buying certain brands.

Internationally, some "anti-consumerist" brands are becoming fashionable, advocating the non-necessity of some products and emphasizing that products don't need to be updated so quickly.

For example, "Patagonia" sells jackets that can last a lifetime.

Philip Kotler, in recent speeches and books, has been advocating a key concept called "brand activism."

Brand activism means a company gives its operations more social meaning, pursuing social responsibility and solving social problems, not just profit and capital returns.

Compared to purely profit-seeking, companies practicing brand activism are more easily seen as leaders in their field.

Kotler, in his works, praised companies like Patagonia, Unilever, and Ben & Jerry's for practicing brand activism.

He believes social polarization, rising income inequality, and staggering CEO pay are directly related.

Companies adhering to consumerism and unconstrained capitalism only focus on short-term gains. This harms society's larger needs. In the long run, these companies shoot themselves in the foot.

Fortunately, under our socialist market economy, we don't need "long-term." Capital will be bridled sooner, and consumerist advocates will soon be slapped in the face.

Huawei, through years of high R&D investment, has become China's most renowned high-tech enterprise with international competitiveness, earning domestic respect and making some countries wary.

Lei Jun said that with Xiaomi's current brand influence, if it made ordinary consumer goods, it could quickly reap high profits. But in the long run, Xiaomi would lose its fundamental competitiveness.

In this sense, Huawei is the true "new consumer brand," and Xiaomi, adhering to "touching people's hearts at fair prices," is the true "new consumer brand."

Summary

1. In recent years, channels and communication have fragmented, with new communication and sales tools emerging. Many brands stood out by leveraging these tools and were called "new consumer brands."

2. If viewed purely from tool usage, these "new consumer brands" are no different from previous CCTV ad brands, outdoor ad brands, or Taobao brands. Most will be fleeting; only a few quality brands will survive and grow long-term.

3. New tools bring new gameplay and real dividends, and many brands have seized this wave. But this is only at the "tactical" level and hard to sustain success.

4. To become a true new consumer brand, you must go against old consumer brands and revolutionize them. Old consumer brands promote consumerism and hold the "consumerist discourse." New consumer brands are "anti-consumerist," establishing a new consumption order.

5. Old consumer brands focus on stimulating demand, unrestrainedly inciting desires and exploiting greed, laziness, comparison, and showing off. New consumer brands innovate and improve from the "supply side," better meeting needs and elevating consumption demand.

6. The socialist market economy, aiming for common prosperity, doesn't advocate unrestrained consumption but promotes thrift. It also doesn't want consumerism to spread, causing social instability and greater wealth polarization. This provides environmental support for true "new consumer brands."

7. The rise of new consumer brands requires social consensus and the rise of national brands. Only when more people break free from consumerism and identify with national brands can true consumer brands rise. They can not only firmly capture the minds of new-era consumers but also go global.

-END-