1 “Courting Death” vs. “Waiting to Die”: Why Do Some People Always Face This Dilemma? The pattern of “doing something is courting death, not doing it is waiting to die” has become a standard phrase for some marketers over the past 15 years. For example, “doing terminal sales is courting death, not doing it is waiting to die,” “doing KA is courting death, not doing it is waiting to die,” “doing e-commerce is courting death, not doing it is waiting to die.” Major marketing changes quickly give rise to the phenomenon of “courting death” and “waiting to die.” Of course, “courting death” may not necessarily happen, but “waiting to die” is certain. “Courting death” with a mindset of “living towards death” makes it easier to find a way out, while “waiting to die” truly leads to a dead end. With so many such cases, we must ask: Why do people always fall into this dilemma? Is marketing change really a paradox? Can we find a way out of this dilemma? In fact, “courting death” and “waiting to die” are the results of simplistic and linear thinking. Is marketing really so simple that it can be done well without thinking outside the box? Certainly not. 2 When Innovation Dividends Are Gone, Following Leads to Dilemma Every innovation initially brings dividends. Of course, with dividends come high risks. Each round of marketing innovation sees new companies stand out, which is the result of innovation dividends. Those who fall into the dilemma of “courting death” and “waiting to die” are likely late followers after the dividends have disappeared. Take KA as an example. When KA entered China, freezers were standard equipment. However, at that time, most companies were reluctant to enter KA because the gross margins differed greatly between KA and traditional channels. In many eyes, KA disrupted the pricing system of traditional channels. As a result, many KA freezers were initially empty. Sinian and Yurun were not large at the time, but they were the first to enter KA freezers and quickly grew alongside KA. When the first batch of companies entering KA grew, many followers rushed in, and KA began to charge fees, which increased over time, inevitably leading to a dilemma: entering KA is courting death (no profit), not entering KA is waiting to die (no sales). The same happened with e-commerce. Early e-commerce players were small businesses; large companies were unwilling to participate. By the time large companies started, e-commerce traffic had become very expensive. At that point, should they do it or not? In essence, the saying “courting death” or “waiting to die” arises from being too late. When you are late but still have to do it, you have no choice but to do it at any cost. In the end, you can only achieve one of two metrics: either no sales (waiting to die) or no profit (courting death). 3 Using One System to Cover Everything Leads to Dilemma Innovation brings dividends. Are some people so foolish as to reject dividends? In fact, any innovation is “creative destruction,” a double-edged sword. On one hand, innovation brings dividends, but any innovative thing is weak initially. It is normal for companies with huge existing business to look down on it. At the same time, an innovative thing often has great destructiveness. For example, KA’s pricing system differs from traditional channels, and e-commerce’s pricing system differs from offline. Different pricing systems inevitably lead to conflicts. Conflicts mean trade-offs. Should you give up the new to keep the old, or give up the big to keep the small? This is contradictory: the new is small, the old is big, leading to conflict and dilemma. The destructiveness of innovation means: if there is existing business, it becomes a huge obstacle to innovation. For example, if a traditional company does e-commerce, it means the gross margin of existing business will decline. If sales haven’t increased but gross margin has declined first, that is hard to accept. So, we must ask: Why must we use one system to do two different things? With the advent of KA, many companies distinguished between “traditional channel products” and “KA products.” With e-commerce, many companies distinguished between “offline products” and “e-commerce products.” If you want to use the same system to cover everything, doing both traditional and innovative, you will inevitably fall into a dilemma! 4 Want to Transform People? Don’t Even Think About It A child can speak at age one, but after studying English for over ten years in school, why can’t they speak it fluently? Rejection is a human instinct and can easily become a group instinct. When innovative things appear, rejection is normal. People are left-handed or right-handed, but someone like “Double Gun Old Lady” may be just a legend. However, when dealing with new marketing things, management often expects employees to be “Double Gun Old Lady.” The more proficient you are in one marketing method, the harder it is to introduce a new system. The hardest thing is changing collective habits. For the emergence of new marketing systems, most companies eventually have no choice but to establish new organizations, such as separating traditional channel teams from KA, and e-commerce from offline. 5 Solving the “Courting Death” and “Waiting to Die” Problem There are many marketing innovations, but not all lead to the dilemma of “courting death” and “waiting to die.” If this happens, it must be a marketing innovation that represents a future trend, and participation is too late, yet unavoidable. To find a way out between “courting death” and “waiting to die,” you need to do the following: First, judge the true impact of the marketing innovation. There are two types of marketing innovation: one is trend-based innovation, which is predictable. For example, as the focus shifts downward, if “city distributors” can replace “provincial distributors,” then “county distributors” replacing “city distributors” is inevitable. The entry of KA from developed countries into China was inevitable. This is trend-based and predictable; there is no need to doubt it. As soon as it happens, respond immediately. The second is disruptive innovation, such as the emergence of e-commerce, which has no historical trajectory. But after C2C (Taobao) succeeded, B2C (Tmall) became predictable. Some innovations are less destructive to traditional systems. The more destructive a marketing innovation is, the more likely it will replace the traditional in the future, and the more seriously it should be treated. However, precisely because of its destructiveness, some companies try every means to delay participation, ultimately falling into a dilemma. Second, adopt a dual-track system. If the marketing innovation is highly destructive to the traditional, then you must protect existing business while creating incremental growth. A good approach is a dual-track system: use the traditional system for existing business and the new system for incremental growth. Of course, there will be some impact between the two systems, but having two systems will minimize that impact. Perhaps after the new system matures, it can merge with the old system, but initially, two systems are necessary. This is the principle of “divide and combine.” “Divide” is to cultivate the new system; “combine” is to reduce costs. Third, build a new team. Transforming an existing team is far more difficult than cultivating a new one. Having two teams may seem to increase costs, but in reality, it improves efficiency. Marketing change ultimately aims to transform people, but the process must not be about transforming people, because transforming people is too difficult. A better approach is a three-step process: First, establish a new team; old employees use traditional methods, new employees use new methods. Second, let the new team gradually assimilate the old team; assimilation is far more powerful than transformation. Third, let the remaining people either transform themselves or leave the team. “Courting death” and “waiting to die” are not inherently contradictory, but many people turn them into a contradiction. This is like many people having no choice because they are cornered; the real question should be why they were cornered. Solving the “courting death” and “waiting to die” problem lies not in the two options themselves, but in eliminating the problem before the choice of “courting death” or “waiting to die” arises. Source: Teacher Liu’s Forum -END- The best FMCG distributor learning platform in China Dedicated to providing professional, practical, and actionable tutorials for companies and distributors Committed to helping Chinese FMCG distributors grow rapidly The most professional and practical knowledge base in the FMCG industry Reply with the red number below to get the corresponding content Reply with number 1 to view the complete knowledge base | 001 Excellent Article Selection | 002 Distributor Market Operations | 003 Terminal Visit Management | 004 Sales Supervisor Skills | 005 Sales Improvement Techniques | 006 Channel Expansion | 007 Managing Distributors | 008 Distributor Development | 009 Distributor Internal Operations Management | 010 Team Management | 011 Efficient Distribution Techniques | 012 Sales Manager’s Skills | 013 KA Operation Methods and Strategies | 014 First Lesson for New Salespeople | 015 Internet, Brands | 016 Distributor B2B Transformation | [Long press QR code to follow]