Introduction The person is still alive and well, yet the "autopsy report" is already out! Is the blood-filled bun really that tasty and effective? Rather than standing by as spectators, let's join Old Miao in offering suggestions to Wahaha and exploring the right approach for the company.
1 Let me first show off a bit and introduce a behavioral science term: fundamental attribution error.
According to Baidu Baike: It is the tendency to overemphasize dispositional factors (blaming or praising others) and underestimate situational factors (blaming or praising the environment) when examining the causes of certain behaviors or outcomes.
In plain language, it means: If I succeed at something—I'm awesome; if I fail—it's all someone else's fault or the damn old society. If someone else succeeds—they're lucky or have a sugar daddy; if they fail—they're just not cut out for it, I knew they couldn't do it. This is called fundamental attribution error, and it's not about a person's character or moral cultivation; it's a natural human reaction. For example, if you slip and fall on the street, your first reaction is inevitably: "Damn, this road is so slippery!" or "Ugh, it's these shoes today." But a bystander's first reaction is: "That guy wasn't watching where he was going." If they're not kind-hearted, they might think: "That fool doesn't look where he's going, falling so embarrassingly—serves him right, hilarious." These are perfectly normal phenomena. But if someone watching you fall shouts: "Come quick! Someone's dropped dead here! Call 110, 120, 250, hurry!" That's just awkward. Wahaha is currently facing such awkwardness: an article titled "Why the Wahaha Empire Fell" has thrust it into the public opinion storm. The person is still alive and well, yet the "autopsy report" is already out. Some are busy jumping on the bandwagon, hoping to grab some traffic dividends; others are busy summarizing, hoping to find a cure for their own ailments. Does Wahaha have problems? Of course it does, and they're not small. Is Wahaha about to collapse? At least for now, there's no sign of that. The "Fall" article didn't present any solid evidence.
2 To put it officially: Wahaha's problems are significant, but they are problems of development. In an era shifting from channel dominance to content dominance, almost all traditional enterprises have suffered setbacks. As the ultimate success story of the channel-dominance era, Wahaha faces greater impact than others. Look at the online sales trend chart for Wahaha in recent years. Not just Wahaha—in recent years, Master Kong, Uni-President, Want Want, and the two cola giants—most traditional FMCG giants are declining. It's not that they have major problems; rather, the market has changed, and consumers have changed. Consumers are segmenting, and it's no longer possible to create a monolithic product brand. Traditional monolithic brands will gradually be dismantled. What were once "king brands" ruling the entire market and all demographics will gradually become "feudal brands" scattered across niche markets. For example, "Xiaoming Classmate," praised in the "autopsy report," is a typical feudal brand, and Old Miao also appreciates it. But no matter how successful this brand is, it can hardly match the sales of previous blockbuster products like Nutrition Express or JDB. Even though Nutrition Express's sales have dropped by more than half, it still sells several times more than Xiaoming Classmate. Additionally, e-commerce has the greatest impact on impulse-purchase products. Their consumption is optional to begin with; because people go out less, consumption in this category decreases, shrinking the market size. Beverages are the first to suffer. This is the major trend. The decline of Wahaha and many traditional giants is inevitable; not declining would be abnormal. It's not that they have major problems. Moreover, traditional large categories suit a high-distribution channel strategy like flood irrigation, while emerging niche products suit a targeted precision distribution strategy. In this context, the channel advantages of traditional giants can't be leveraged and even become a burden. In previous articles, Old Miao praised Wahaha's channel model, believing that the rights, responsibilities, and interests between the manufacturer and distributors were clear, with less gaming and internal friction. Moreover, Wahaha held a dominant position in the channel chain and could effectively motivate distributors through reasonable means. But there's a variable: among Wahaha's incentives for distributors, sales growth and new product promotions account for a large proportion. Once sales decline and new product promotions fail, distributor profits quickly thin out, causing channel instability. So, channel problems are not the cause of Wahaha's decline but the result.
3 What are Wahaha's own problems? Is it too rustic? Doesn't it know how to communicate with the post-95s? Or is imitation no longer working? Or is Zong Qinghou too stubborn and autocratic? "Rustic" has never been a measure of whether a product or brand can succeed. Some find gold chains tacky, others stylish; some find Smartisan phones fashionable, others tacky; and the iPhone 7 in China Red—well, let's not use such amateurish arguments. Does communicating with post-95s mean being like Xiaoming Classmate? Does it mean being "flirty, slutty, and cheap"? Probably not. The biggest difference with this generation might be their diversity. In the "Fall" article, we see a post-95 expressing disdain for Wahaha, but in another article, we see a different scene. As for imitation, it's worth discussing further. Wahaha's new product strategy is well-known in the industry. They call it "striking after the fact" or "imitation-based innovation." Outsiders often focus on Wahaha's imitation while overlooking its innovation. If we divide Wahaha's thirty years by representative product launches: first, the Children's Nutrition Liquid phase—survival and development; second, the purified water and AD calcium milk phase—the dragon-tiger fight with Robust; third, the Nutrition Express phase—the beverage world's leader; fourth, the recent years of repeated new product failures—the "fallen" phase. Most people see its imitation of Apollo, Xiaoyangren, and Robust, while intentionally or unintentionally ignoring its innovation. Some innovations are in ingredient claims and functional positioning, others in demographic appeals and market positioning. What impresses Old Miao most is "Nutrition Express": positioned as a breakfast substitute drink, with the slogan "Drink one in the morning, energized all morning." I remember seeing that ad and immediately running to a New Huadu store to buy a bottle of Nutrition Express, slapping my head in excitement—brilliant! Clear scenario, clear appeal. More importantly, from Old Miao's understanding, most domestic bosses think: Why only breakfast substitute? Can't it be drunk at noon? Other times? Why limit yourself? Being able to make such a trade-off, Boss Zong is no ordinary man! Okay, enough flattery—it might sound like I'm defending him. Let's continue on the topic of "imitation-based innovation." Innovation is often a new combination of old elements, and learning from others is valuable in any era. But the effectiveness of striking after the fact, as Wahaha did before, has greatly diminished. First, product iteration is now fast, shortening the window for successful imitation and increasing difficulty. Second, in the future, most successful products will be in niche markets. Many niche markets, due to their small size, don't follow the law of two but are winner-take-all, with one dominant player. The feasibility of imitation and follow-up is greatly reduced. Just try having a company follow Xiaoming Classmate. Third, a key reason Wahaha could strike after the fact was its efficient channels, but as mentioned, in this era, the advantage of large channels is lost. Zong Qinghou's autocracy is well-known in the industry, but stubbornness is not. The industry has always regarded him as "enlightened yet autocratic." Look at what he's been doing recently—his ideas are quite bold:
Litter coco fresh coconut, MIAO yogurt, Jiaosu enzyme drink, and just yesterday I saw a high-protein shake with 10g protein per serving called Baiweite—these are Wahaha's new products.
_ _
Aggressively deploying vending machines—is this Boss Zong's new retail?
_ _
Planning to sell ad space on 30 billion beverage bottles. (After seeing the ads, will our drinks become free?) Regardless of whether these new products or projects succeed, at least it proves that Zong Qinghou is still an industrialist who stays on the front line, understands the market, and continuously responds. "Not afraid of mistakes, staying open-minded, and constantly throwing punches" —this is the key reason Old Miao remains confident in Wahaha.
4 Analyzing a bunch of problems may not be as useful as one constructive suggestion. Let's offer suggestions below, and welcome readers and critics to discuss and supplement—consider it a sandbox exercise. 1. Don't expect existing Wahaha products to increase sales; current sales may not even hold, until they stabilize in their respective niche markets. So for existing products, adopt a profit-oriented and harvest strategy. 2. Wahaha's growth will come from new products, but it should adopt a sub-brand strategy; the current main-sub brand strategy is inappropriate. 3. Although Wahaha's channels are strong, new products can no longer use old channels—the failure rate is extremely high. Previous new products may have died this way. 4. For new products, adopt a project incubation system. Not only can the princess be the boss, but others can also be project bosses, with Wahaha providing capital, platform, and other resource support. 5. Wahaha's original channel system needs to be reorganized; the growth-based assessment method will break the channel chain. 6. For new products, don't just "strike after the fact"; learn to "strike first," i.e., develop forward-looking new products. 7. Improve internet and self-media communication. In these recent public opinion incidents, Wahaha's PR team scored low. 8. Boss Zong should increase exposure but speak less. This old man Zong has always been pragmatic and not talkative, but he's a cannon: he's said "Market research firms are liars; I rely on walking the market myself"; when other entrepreneurs talk about sentiment, he says it's "empty; the key is making money"; when others leverage capital, he says listing is "just to raise money; I'm not short of cash"; he often fires off, offending many. He still does this, like calling Ma Yun's talk "nonsense." This was fine in the old communication environment; mainstream media would interpret your words deeply and rationally. But in internet communication, everything has changed—what spreads is emotion and drama. Boss Zong's cannon-like remarks often play right into the hands of those who take them out of context. Offending people and being smeared is only natural. And now, the "autopsy report" is out—ha ha. Remember the case of "Eight bottles of Sanlu killed an old man"? Boss Zong should remember that well. -END-