Step back, and the sky is the limit. That is the wisdom of life. Step forward, and the sky is the limit. That is the logic of marketing. This year is tough. Should we step back or step forward? After 36 years since graduation, 36 years in hands-on corporate work, and 32 years in marketing, I am retiring this year. I am undeniably a marketing veteran. Looking back, few of my peers who started in marketing are still on the front lines. An old hand's greatest value is experience; his greatest flaw is the urge to peddle it. These years have been hard. But reflecting on past marketing challenges, similar difficulties were not uncommon. Every hurdle in marketing has caused some companies or marketers to disappear from view. Difficulties that have been overcome are tests; those not overcome are graves. After crossing one hurdle after another, one should have summarized the patterns of overcoming them. I particularly admire a quote from Drucker: Innovation is not a flash of inspiration; it is a systematic, process-driven work. Similarly, solving today's era-defining problems does not rely on flashes of insight but on mastering the laws of the times. Every round of marketing difficulties sees some companies stand out. From historical patterns, do these standouts share common traits? The pattern I have identified is: take one step forward. This pattern actually originates from evolutionary theory. Evolution has prerequisites. A mouse cannot evolve into a human, but a monkey can. Evolution also has direction. It is not a single leap but a series of relentless steps. A company with scale is constrained by its existing stock; it cannot overturn its own meal table, so it must choose evolution from its current reality. An innovative company often denies tradition wholesale, which is wrong. Without traditional companies, innovation would not exist. Taking one step forward involves two questions: First, in what direction? Second, how big a step? Let me start with the channel, which I know best. What is the direction of channel evolution? I think it is simple: infinitely approaching C, yet never fully reaching C. Channel evolution is taking one step forward each time in the process of infinitely approaching C. Since I started in marketing over 30 years ago, there has been constant emphasis on market orientation, consumer orientation, user orientation, and user operations. It seems each time we believed we had grasped the truth about users, negating the previous marketing thinking. In fact, these were all self-righteous moments in a continuous process of progress. Because of this self-righteousness, we set the tone for future purification and negation. I even think our worship of users is wrong. Is it users who shape marketing, or marketing that changes users? Does marketing determine trends, or do trends determine marketing? Marketing and users are a two-way shaping process. Taking one step forward is not only to better understand users but also to better influence and change them, and to reduce obstacles in the two-way shaping process. From the start of working with channels, I understood their dual nature. Channels are both pathways and barriers. Channels can approach users, understand them, and also shape and change them. The first difficulty I encountered in marketing was the 1997 Asian financial crisis. It was truly devastating. Overnight, the Chinese market shifted from a shortage economy to a surplus economy, with no transition period. The solution was still to take one step forward: channels moved from "provincial distribution" to "municipal distribution," shifting the marketing unit from province to city. This step was enormous. Not only did the number of customers and the sales force multiply tenfold, but it also introduced the concept of regional management. In the provincial distribution era, a distributor once proudly told me, "My goods can sell south to Hainan Island and north to Harbin." With the 1998 shift from "provincial agency" to "municipal agency," the 2000 shift from "municipal agency" to "county agency" was a natural progression. From "provincial agency" to "municipal agency" was a step forward in channels. From "municipal agency" to "county agency" was also a step forward. What effect did taking one step forward produce? At the time, I said that if you just did this, sales could grow 20% for three consecutive years without fail. What was the cost of stepping forward? The old big players were eliminated; salespeople who refused to eliminate them were eliminated; managers who refused to eliminate those salespeople were eliminated. Also eliminated were the functions of the sales force. In the "provincial agency" and "municipal agency" stages, the sales force was called "salesmen." Only after entering the "county agency" stage did they start being called "business representatives." The term "salesman" disappeared from China's marketing system from then on. The deep distribution that began in 2003 was also a step forward in channels. From the brand's perspective, channels extended from big B to small b. This step was equally difficult, mainly because it required transforming distributors from "sitting merchants" to "traveling merchants," and a traveling merchant system is a "small but complete" system. Recently, we proposed platformizing distributors, handing many distributor functions to third parties, which met with great resistance. Remember, building the traveling merchant system originally faced even greater resistance. What seems natural now was built through immense hardship. The terminal interception (in-store promotion) that began in 2005 extended channels from small b to C. In 2008, I proposed terminal promotion, which turned terminal interception into terminal activation, extending terminals from KA to ordinary stores. The above channel changes can be expressed as: provincial B → municipal B → county B → terminal b. Is this process not one of infinitely approaching C? That is the direction of channel evolution. Some call it channel flattening. But we must see both sides. Many only see channel flattening, not the hierarchical sales organization behind it. Each channel evolution adds a level of management. The final result is that the sum of internal management levels and channel levels is 6. Looking back, each step is a small step. Looking forward, each step is a big step. When e-commerce emerged, it seemed brands could directly reach C, and channels were thus finished. At some point, terms like e-commerce thinking, user thinking, and traffic thinking flooded the internet—all concepts instilled by platforms. This is another example of mutual shaping. Two things greatly influenced me. One was Scott Brinker, the proponent of MarTech, who in "Hacking Marketing" called e-commerce a "software intermediary" channel. The other was a conversation with an internet expert who said that in a closed system, the sum of profits of all players is zero. Gambling is like that. This can be proven mathematically. That one sentence explained the fate of e-commerce participants. These two things made me realize: First, for brands, e-commerce is not a direct-to-C system. Second, the cost of e-commerce may be unimaginably high. At that point, I returned to my original understanding of channel evolution direction. Channels can only infinitely approach, not fully reach, C. So I proposed the new step in evolution: bC integration. This is not a full step but only half a step. As long as you master the b end, you can maintain a close-but-not-too-close relationship with C. This logic is also related to early deep distribution promotion. TCL was the first to implement deep distribution, but most imitators suffered heavy losses because they did not understand TCL's logic of "stepping back half a step." Teacher Shi Wei's concepts of three-dimensional space and trinity have had a major impact on bC integration. In the past, reaching C was only possible through channels and media; now online, offline, and networks can all reach C. That is three-dimensional space. Cognition, transaction, and relationship—the trinity—further concretize the actions to reach C. Under the current predicament, how should marketing be done? Following the idea of taking one step forward, it is bC integration. Perhaps the future popular method will not be called bC integration, but it will surely follow this basic logic, because the popularity of marketing methods is itself a result of marketing. Discussing marketing evolution inevitably involves brands. But as soon as we talk about brands, common ground is hard to find, because everyone—experts, beginners, and the general public—can say something about the concept. Until one day, I discussed this with marketing expert Teacher Fang Gang. We talked about how brands were built in agricultural society. How were brands built in agricultural society? At that time, there was no concept of brand, only word of mouth. "Good wine needs no bush" means cognition was based on mouth-to-mouth communication. Let me return to McLuhan's "Understanding Media": the biggest variable affecting society is media. Of course, media here is in a broad sense. In agricultural society, paper was scarce, so the mouth became the primary medium. The mouth shaped consumer cognition. In industrial society, mass media became the primary medium. Cognition formed through mass media communication is the brand. All 20th-century brand theories were premised on mass media. So it is important to step outside the brand concept and think in a higher-dimensional concept. Communication and consumer cognition emerge. Brand is consumer cognition formed through mass media. Looking back, word of mouth is consumer cognition born from the mouth as a mass medium. What comes after brand? That depends on what the new mainstream medium is. Currently, internet media are not yet fixed. PC internet, mobile internet, self-media, live streaming, short video—new media keep emerging. From a cognition perspective, what is the next step in communication? Simple: see what the mainstream medium is. Seize the mainstream medium for cognition, and approach C infinitely in channels. That is the direction of "taking one step forward." Facing the current marketing dilemma, there are two typical ways of thinking. One is to change with change. Follow trends and create trends. The vast majority will follow the crowd. The other is to return to fundamentals and grasp unchanging laws. Returning to fundamentals is right, but staying unchanged is impossible. My view differs from both. Change is directional and rhythmic. We must view change from a historical perspective: each step is premised on the previous step and is the premise for the next. Stoop to a low dimension to understand the market; stand at a high dimension to think of solutions. From a high dimension, the direction of channel evolution is clear at a glance. Solve your own difficulties with your own personality. Solve the difficulties of the times with methods that align with direction and trends. PS: Click Read Original to view more highlights from the 9th China FMCG Innovation Conference & the 2nd China FMCG Hard Discount Conference & the 2nd China FMCG Distributor Conference...