Over 20 years ago, when I was deputy editor-in-chief at Sales & Marketing, frontline salespeople at monthly editorial meetings would often complain: “We've done everything we should, but sales aren't growing—what can we do?” I wrote many articles on this topic.
Later, this topic mysteriously disappeared. Because the promotion of deep distribution models brought sales growth again, and this dilemma no longer existed. The promotion of deep distribution revealed that there were actually many more “actions we should have taken” that we hadn't, simply because we couldn't imagine them before.
A topic that vanished for years has recently resurfaced frequently. Not long ago, marketing expert Mr. Zhu Chaoyang highlighted the phenomenon of salespeople being “street wanderers”—where visit check-ins are ineffective, leaving them as “street wanderers.” Some become “street wanderers” out of laziness, but more are helpless. Store owners don't welcome them, and they can't stay in stores; companies require assessments, and skipping check-ins invites criticism. What else can they do but be “street wanderers”?
A comment under the article said: “We've done everything we should, but sales aren't growing—what can salespeople do?” Some even suggested, “Just abolish salespeople altogether.”
A topic that appears cyclically must follow a cyclical pattern. And the solution lies hidden within that pattern.
“We've done everything we should”—a limitation of perception
When saying “we've done everything we should,” there must be a standard template of what “should” be done. This template might be the company's standard procedures or what the salesperson believes are effective actions. The implication is: compared to the standard template, we've done everything. And there's a deeper context: this approach worked before, so why doesn't it work now?
Looking back at the environment of “we've done everything we should” over 20 years ago, that was an era before deep distribution was promoted. There were no salespeople then, only salesmen.
The functions of salesmen were summarized as “six roles”: researcher, distributor recruiter, planner, trainer, promoter, and seller. One person handled a region or several wholesalers.
At that time, “doing everything we should” meant working within the framework of the “six roles.” Early on, the “six roles” model was indeed effective. But as expert training and corporate promotion spread, when this method became widely adopted, it gradually lost its effectiveness.
So salesmen were helpless, throwing up their hands: “We've done everything we should, but sales aren't growing—what can we do?”
My reflection at the time was: Have we really done everything we should? What actions should we take to drive growth?
The right thinking is to work around growth, not just “do everything we should.”
After participating in promoting deep distribution, we discovered new ways to drive growth, focusing on growth-oriented actions. When deep distribution proved effective, we realized “there were still many things we should have done.” “We've done everything we should” is just self-imposed limitation.
For salesmen back then, following company requirements was correct; for companies, using previously effective sales actions was also correct. But all actions were done, yet what worked before no longer works. It seems no one is at fault, but a deadlock has emerged. So where exactly is the problem? Who is responsible?
The essence of adversarial competition
An athlete who breaks a record should be happy. But that record-breaking athlete may not win the championship, because the top several athletes all broke records. The champion isn't because of breaking records, but because they are faster, higher, and stronger than others.
This is the nature of adversarial competition: you must do better than your opponents, surpass them, not just “do what opponents do.”
An athlete who invents a training method (or tactic) defeats others and wins the championship. When other athletes imitate, they might defeat the inventor. Athletes can't say, “I've done everything I should, why didn't I win?” They must find better methods.
Marketing is also adversarial competition, sharing similarities with competitive sports.
The earliest companies to adopt deep distribution found the “eight-step deep distribution method” highly effective. When salespeople visited stores, owners felt the manufacturer “respected them,” were delighted, and gave everything—stocking, shelf space, and resources.
The reason was simple: you did store visits, while competitors didn't.
But when more salespeople did the same, store attitudes changed. Now visits became “interference,” and pushing inventory was seen as manufacturer aggression. Manufacturer salespeople became unwelcome and turned into “street wanderers.”
It's not that deep distribution failed, but when all manufacturers do it, everyone is on equal footing, and deep distribution no longer provides an advantage.
Whether an action is effective depends not on the action itself, but on whether it gives you an advantage over competitors. If everyone is doing deep distribution, why should you have an advantage?
In adversarial competition, if someone else wins the championship, you lose your chance, regardless of whether you broke records.
“We've done everything we should, but sales aren't growing” is normal because all manufacturers are doing the same. When I entered university over 40 years ago, college students were “the favored of heaven” because admission rates were low; now degrees are devalued because admission rates are too high. This is the inevitable result of adversarial competition.
Aim for the next standard action template
When topics like “we've done everything we should” resurface, it means the current marketing model has become widespread and ineffective.
There are two reactions when a model fails. One is the management-oriented company's reaction: strengthen action assessments, check-ins, and eventually “rebel” salespeople—many companies do this now. It might be effective initially; the other is the operation-oriented company's reaction: discover new growth actions, focus on growth-oriented actions, rather than reinforcing old standard procedures.
If the last round of growth actions was deep distribution, what is the new round? When the topic “we've done everything we should” appears, we should act decisively and actively seek the “next standard template.”
The evolution of offline channels has its patterns. In the salesman era, salesmen worked around B-end (wholesalers) with the “six roles”; in the salesperson era, salespeople worked around terminals (stores) with deep distribution. Following the logic of B-end to b-end, what should we work around next?
One path is to work around C-end, taking a full step forward. E-commerce, private domains, etc., do this, called DTC. This is the online path.
Another is to work around b-end to reach C-end, taking half a step forward. We call this bC-integrated user operations. More precisely, it's scenario-based bC-integrated user operations, also known as scenario marketing.
Both share the common feature of C-end operations, i.e., user operations.
Some companies that practiced bC integration early have already achieved remarkable results, just like early deep distribution adopters. Even in the baijiu industry, bC integration (bC linkage) has become widespread.
You may not agree with my proposed “user operation actions,” but you must find your own “next standard action template.” Otherwise, staying in the state of complaining about “we've done everything we should” and being left behind by the wheel of history is normal.
Once you've done bC-integrated user operations, you'll find that even in a shrinking market, sales grow, and “we've done everything we should” becomes a reality again.
The era of user operations
Before 2000, it was a wholesale era with salesmen and wholesalers. They had action plans, actions they should take, and times when those actions failed.
After 2000, salesmen exited, and salespeople rose; wholesalers exited, and distributors rose. The prescribed actions changed. The same prescribed actions were effective early on but ineffective later. Even doing everything you should was ineffective.
Now we are entering a new era: distributors exit, B2b platform providers and operators rise; salespeople exit, operators rise. New organizations, functions, and skills will inevitably emerge.
Mingren Soda is reducing salespeople but has a new “iron triangle” organization of city managers, scenario specialists, and communication officers. They all have their own work to do.
Lidu Company has no salespeople; instead, it has a “1+3” organization: one operator, one experience officer, one communication officer, and one service officer. They have new actions they should take, and they are very effective.
Times change, and marketing action templates must evolve. When “we've done everything we should but it doesn't work,” it's not personal lack of effort, but a changed competitive environment. The only way out is to find the next effective standard template and lead the industry again.
This is the fundamental way to solve this cyclical problem.
Deep distribution solved the last round of growth, and the next round's answer is being regenerated in C-end, user operations, and bC integration. Whoever finds the new template first will get ahead and grasp the new growth curve.
So, in March 2026, New Distribution will host the 11th China FMCG Conference and the 6th China FMCG Distribution and Retail Conference under the theme “Advance Toward the C-End.”
This is not just a conference; it's an industry mindset shift! If you agree this shift is happening, if you don't want to passively stand at the edge of the cycle—
Come, see the path clearly, and take the methods with you.
Scan the QR code for details, and we'll see you in March 2026!
Ticket inquiries: Zhuang Jiting