Years ago, while serving a company, we identified a new category as a future trend, but its growth was slow. We advocated for establishing a new department to operate independently; the next year, the new category's sales quadrupled, and at that point, we proposed merging the departments. Some people raised objections, questioning: "When you separated, you had your reasons; now you merge, and you still have reasons. How come the logic is always on your side?" Someone tried to mediate: "What has long been divided must unite, and what has long been united must divide." We said: "Separation is for growth, merging is for profitability, each with its own stage-specific goals. Though separation and merging seem opposite, they are actually driven by the same logic." This logic is: to accomplish a complex task, it must be divided into multiple stages; stages form a path, and the path leads to the final result. It's hard to achieve all goals with a single method, but we can definitely achieve goals in stages. Separation increases costs but boosts sales. So, first use separation to increase sales, temporarily ignoring costs; once sales rise, costs will also drop, and merging departments will further increase profits. 1 Not long ago, I chatted with a boss. This company faced a dilemma common to many small businesses: because there are no sales, costs are high; because costs are high, there are no sales. Here, we must find two critical points: First, what is the cost point for a significant sales increase? Second, what is the sales critical point for a significant cost reduction? Once these two critical points are found, there is a way. It's still a staged approach. First, lower the price to the critical point that quickly drives volume, rapidly building up sales; then use the scale of sales to reduce costs. By cycling through this, sales grow larger and costs decrease. This approach is called "future cost pricing." That is, set prices based on future costs; because of the price advantage, it will achieve the expected sales, ultimately resulting in both sales and profits. In this logic system, there are two key words: one is the critical point; the other is speed. Without finding the critical point, this approach cannot be implemented; if speed is too slow and the critical point is not reached in time, not only will endurance be limited, but confidence will also wane. 2 Marketing expert Jin Huanmin once said that even if we propose opposite approaches, the underlying logic is the same. I have said similar things. Zhuge Liang debated the scholars, and Zhang Zhao questioned him: "Before Liu Bei obtained your services, he could still roam the world and hold cities. After obtaining you, he abandoned Xinye, fled to Fancheng, was defeated at Dangyang, and fled to Xiakou, with no place to settle. Isn't he worse off than before?" Zhuge Liang replied: "It's like a person suffering from a serious illness: first, feed them thin gruel and mild medicine; wait until their internal organs are harmonized and their body gradually stabilizes, then use meat to nourish and strong medicine to cure. Then the root of the disease is removed, and the person is saved. If you administer strong medicine and rich food before the qi and pulse are calm, seeking safety is indeed difficult." Although the debate may be fictional, I still appreciate this dialogue by Zhuge Liang: different stages require different methods, and the methods across stages are coherent. 3 The original intention of writing "Chinese-style Marketing" was not only to summarize Chinese practice but also because I particularly dislike two types of people. One type constantly talks about how multinational companies are, which is especially annoying. Multinational companies are certainly powerful; we must admit that. But Chinese companies are still in kindergarten, while others are graduate students. How can they learn? There's no comparability; it's like standing and talking without back pain. Another type always says, "What exists is reasonable," and that backward existence is reasonable, but in fact, they are on the brink of death without knowing it. In Chinese-style marketing, there is an important concept: "atlas thinking." That is, divide the journey between Chinese companies and multinational companies into many stages, using different methods and ideas at different stages to solve different problems. If multinational companies are graduate students and we are kindergarteners, then we must first go through elementary school, then middle school, then university, and finally graduate school. Some call this a path, others a roadmap; we call it an atlas. All are correct, just different terms. The above process cannot be skipped, but the pace can be accelerated, turning the catch-up into a compressed process. For example, when facing strong brands, we propose: "Use sales to break strong brands, use sales to support strong brands." These are two steps. We also proposed a brand atlas. In this process, methods will constantly change, but the underlying logic remains consistent. 4 Below is a excerpt from a friend's comment on my public account. It's praise for me. Netizen 1: All of Teacher Liu's theories are consistent; in other words, reading one article basically means reading all, but each article elaborates on different issues. Netizen 2: If one deeply agrees with the background, connotation, extension, and methodology of his new marketing system, it's not hard to see that his theory forms a self-contained school. Once systematized, contradictions no longer appear. Netizen 3: Theories come in three types: self-justifying, naturally coherent, and stagnant. Self-justifying ones are like building a cart behind closed doors; if the audience lacks sufficient vision and judgment, they are easily persuaded. The theories used in pyramid schemes are typical self-justifying types. Netizen 4: Naturally coherent ones are like products of sunlight; all theories can be openly debated and withstand attacks from multiple sides. They do not rely on power or superstition of authority. Teacher Liu's theories belong to this category. Netizen 5: As for the stagnant type, it's the state of most ordinary people: vague and wavering. Their theories are not meant to guide action to produce results, but rather to dress results in a gorgeous coat, which is essentially like the emperor's new clothes. 5 I don't think I have achieved the praise above, but I have been striving. I particularly appreciate a saying by Teacher Jin Huanmin: "Anything that cannot be compatible is a virus." This is especially true for knowledge systems. Don't think that knowing more is always better; they may be viruses to each other. How can we make knowledge compatible? There must be three steps: Step one: Build your own knowledge system. This is the hardest thing. Generally, you need to read classics thoroughly and connect them to build your own knowledge system. Classics are classics because they have stood the test of time. So, don't easily reject classics. For example, many criticize Kotler, but from the criticism, I suspect they haven't thoroughly read Kotler's "Marketing Management." Not to mention reading it thoroughly; even finishing it is a challenge. To understand marketing, learning marketing alone is not enough; you also need to understand its origins, its parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. In the internet society, fragmented knowledge is rampant, and in the end, it may all be viruses. First have the underlying logic, then the top-level design. With top-level design, there is a framework system, with clear background, connotation, extension, logic, methods, and methodology. Step two: Once a knowledge system is established, it will be compatible, sublate, and form an absorption capacity. Which knowledge can be absorbed, which needs to be compatible, which to sublate, which to criticize—forming an absorption capacity. Step three: Form your own viewpoints and theories. With the above two steps, the viewpoints formed will be consistent and not self-contradictory. Methods can change, even be contradictory, but the underlying logic remains unshaken. Source: Teacher Liu's Forum (ID: liuchunxiong1964) -END-