At the 2017 Chongqing Autumn Sugar Fair, Mr. Liu Chunxiong proposed the term "New Marketing" in his speech at the Huatang Forum, and elaborated the new marketing framework of "4P as Communication". Since then, New Marketing has become a hot topic, sparking heated discussions in the marketing community: What is the difference between traditional marketing and new marketing? Regarding the definition of New Marketing, Mr. Liu Chunxiong made it clear: The core theory is that all 4Ps are communication. As for the new marketing organization, it corresponds to the traditional marketing organization. Therefore, I define traditional marketing organizations as B-end organizations, and new marketing organizations as C-end organizations. The past three decades: sit-selling, mobile-selling, and connected-selling. The backdrop of this era is that we are experiencing a time of material abundance, even surplus. The shift from material needs to the need for a better life inevitably brings about major changes in marketing. 1. Sit-selling era: Because demand was strong and materials were scarce, marketing was as simple as "having goods makes you the boss". Most manufacturers' marketing systems were in a state of waiting for customers at the door. A group of capable individuals or dealers who transitioned from the supply and marketing system rose, solving the wholesale problem was enough. Second-tier distributors chased profits, selling whenever they could make money. Marketing organizations were so simple that a few people could complete the job. 2. Mobile-selling era: Productivity soared under strong demand, and the drawbacks of sit-selling began to show. Some manufacturers and dealers evolved into mobile-selling, cutting off large distributors and going to the terminals became standard practice. Strong manufacturers began to bypass dealers and directly control terminals, leading to large-scale marketing organizations: deep distribution, channel refinement, channel flattening... This period eliminated countless sit-selling dealers and personnel, and evolved a large number of service-oriented mobile-selling dealers. Manufacturers and dealers formed a game of mutual destruction: manufacturers tamed dealers into delivery providers, and dealers dragged manufacturers into management quagmires. Because of the need to control tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of terminals, manufacturers' marketing organizations expanded rapidly, with sales teams growing tenfold or a hundredfold: Strengthened sales, forgot the brand! Held the terminals, forgot the consumers! Because resources and energy were all given to the channel, leaving no room for consumers! 3. Connected-selling stage: The internet is the biggest dividend of this stage, and the essence of the dividend is connection. Traffic thinking became a concept that traditional marketers could not understand, even looking down on and cursing Alibaba and JD.com's e-commerce. Unfortunately, while they ignored it, others used the internet dividend to go straight to consumers (C-end), leaving everyone in the dust, and evolving a new type of dealers and marketing organizations. This is only the first half. In the second half, mobile internet began a new round of connection dividends. Community-based micro-business organizations began to appear, and were again cursed by traditional marketers: This is a scam to cheat people! Reflecting on B-end organizations: Too much debt? After nearly 20 years of prevalence, the B-end organization management system began to become basic martial arts in the internet age. B-end organizations often achieve greatness or regional dominance, built on the basis of demand that can be devoured, driven by execution as the mainspring. Therefore, as long as there is strong sales, there is no need to chatter with consumers, and thus no need for a so-called marketing department. At most, they use the name of marketing department but do the work of sales support or sales service. In several articles I wrote last year, I called the sales department the "Kamikaze Team" and the marketing department the "Pig Teammate"! This is the root cause of the continuous decline of some major brands in the past two years, with no solution. Many companies shout in their strategic slogans that consumers are God, but in their bones, consumers are nonsense! The sales department has tens of thousands of people, the marketing department has dozens, brand expenses are less than a fraction of sales expenses, and R&D expenses are not even worth listing... "What goes around comes around." The Great Wall built by channels, execution, and capital may still stand tall, but the connected merchants have already flown over it gracefully, without even saying goodbye! The essence of a B-end organization is a pyramid organization led by sales, a sea of people driven by execution, KPIs, and linear management, a zombie organization that believes "what you assess, employees will do", but forgets "what you don't assess, the organization won't do"! No company will assess caring about consumers, no company will assess product R&D, because the almighty KPI won't either! What does a new marketing organization look like? Does every company need to abolish its B-end organization and transform into a C-end organization? The answer is definitely no! I have written several articles on organizational transformation, studied the transformation cases of several major brands, and also studied the game between stock and increment within the same organization. The realistic conclusion is: The natural enemy of increment is stock. In plain words: In the transformation of traditional enterprises, the vast majority of innovative people are basically eliminated by their own people, venting private anger with dismemberment and a thousand cuts. This may be a pessimistic view. Traditional enterprises have a strong need for transformation, but they will also fall into confusion during the process. Perhaps it also means opportunities for new brands. For example, Xiaoshile's strong C-end organization not only includes an advisory group composed of top domestic marketing experts and consulting firms, but also new organizations such as model groups and coaching teams. There is no C-end gene in B-end organizations. This is also the fundamental reason why people who have been in traditional marketing organizations for a long time cannot transform. A basic logic to distinguish a B-end organization is to look at its organizational framework: sales-led territory management, channel-operation-focused model building, performance-assessment-oriented management, and daily life centered on the division and contention of responsibilities, rights, and interests. So, what does a C-end organization model look like? The two organizations are theoretically in opposition. Where B-end organizations do heavy work, C-end organizations do light work, and vice versa. So, does a C-end organization need to abolish the sales function? That depends on where your channel lands. Only by clarifying where your channel is can you match your organization. Perhaps one day, traditional marketers will not only learn to sweep the streets, but also learn to sweep people. Of course, remember that 4P is all about communication, whereas in the past it was emphasized that 4P is all about sales. Also remember: Sales is just one leg of marketing. If the leg of communication and cognition is lame, you will still fall behind! The past 30 years of marketing: it was a process of F2B2b2C2c (in the future, this logic may be reversed), evolving into three stages: sit-selling, mobile-selling, and connected-selling. F=factory, B=dealer, b=terminal, C=KOL, c=consumer. F2B=sit-selling era, core solving wholesale and channel problems. F2b=depth distribution, core solving terminal problems. F2C=traffic and connection, core solving consumer and user problems. Organization is the result of strategy. Only by clarifying this logic can the organizational transformation of new marketing find its footing! Source: New Beer (ID: newbeer_BJ) -END-