A role that only God can perform. Sales representatives being unwelcome is now the norm in the channel. This is true for small enterprises and large ones alike. Being unwelcome means being disliked by distributors and retailers. It's not that a few individuals are disliked, but the entire group is. Of course, a few exceptional sales reps are exceptions. Where does the problem lie? Are sales reps getting worse or generally unqualified? Of course not. Drucker said in "The Effective Executive" that if three people have been in a position and all failed, then the problem is not with the people but with the position. The widespread dislike of sales reps is certainly not their fault but a problem with the role itself. What's wrong with the role? Drucker said it's a position designed for "only God to be able to do." Indeed, the current sales rep role is one that only God could handle, and even God might struggle. Drucker's insight is remarkable! The sales rep role has become a "harmful" one, and merely improving individual skills won't solve the problem. What exactly are sales reps doing? The sales rep group includes those who visit B-end distributors, those who visit b-end stores as distributors, and those who work as promoters at terminals. They are all unwelcome now. A few years ago, I wrote an article with Chen Siting from New Distribution about the "demise of the promoter." Now, "Fat Change" stores no longer have brand promoters because their promotions at the terminal interfere with consumers' normal shopping. What benefits the brand is detrimental to the terminal. Distributors visiting b-end stores roughly have two tasks. First, daily route visits. They visit 20-30 stores daily and upload visit information on the SFA system, euphemistically called "building relationships." Facing scheduled, fixed-route visits, store owners have developed a set of responses that sound like agreement but are essentially refusals, quickly "dismissing" the sales reps. Second, policy-driven stock pressure. The b-end is struggling, with normal sales yielding no profit. When policies push stock, such as buying displays, they are willing, but whether they actively recommend is another matter. In the early days of deep distribution, stores didn't return goods, and the responsibility lay with the store owner; now, no matter how much they stock, there's no pressure because expired goods will be returned anyway. Sales reps visiting B-end distributors, facing monthly sales targets in a shrinking market, have no good long-term strategies. If they fail KPI, they're out, so they have no choice but to push stock. In the past, distributors valued first-tier brand agency rights, but now they're afraid of stock pressure, and those rights don't matter much. Frontline sales reps lack the power to solve frontline problems, and their assessment methods leave no room for long-term planning. Standardized visit models also leave no room for creativity. These tasks are not self-determined but are standardized processes mandated by the company. Not doing them is impossible because of check-ins, but doing them is of little use. That's the awkward position of sales reps. Sales reps being unwelcome is a phenomenon, but what fault do they have? They're just following processes and standards. They are aggrieved! And they have nowhere to voice their grievances. The Good Old Days of Sales Reps Looking back at the status of sales reps in the channel, the most welcomed era was before 2010, and the least welcomed was after 2020. Between these periods, it varied by individual. Individual dislike is entirely different from group dislike. I often say in management: if individual employees have problems, the cause may lie with them; if all employees have problems, the cause must lie with the boss. If the boss says "the employees are a bunch of idiots," then the boss is the biggest idiot. Why were sales reps generally welcomed before 2010? That was a time when the salesman role was disappearing and the sales rep role had just been established. It was also when wholesalers were disappearing and distributors were rising. In that era, both sales reps and distributors were new, and as long as they did deep distribution well, they didn't worry about sell-through, with over 20% growth for years. At that time, deep distribution didn't require listing policies or stock pressure, and distribution skills were far less mature than now. It was simply because sales reps did the right action—deep distribution—that it was effective. When actions are effective, they are welcomed. We should also note that when sales reps were welcomed, salesmen were losing ground until they disappeared. That was the best of times for sales reps and the worst for salesmen. The good times for sales reps were the bad times for salesmen. Similarly, when distributors were doing well, wholesalers shrank until they vanished. That was the best for distributors and the worst for wholesalers. So, the welcome of sales reps then was due to the effectiveness of deep distribution. After 2020, the group's unwelcome status is not due to the reps but to the role's responsibilities and actions. So, should we solve the problem at the skill level or at the role's responsibility and action level? Sales Reps as Unpaid Labor A company president once said: if you do what competitors don't, that's service; if you do what competitors do, that's obligation. The value of deep distribution has changed greatly over 20 years, from service to obligation. Not doing it is impossible, but doing it has little impact on sales. If daily work becomes an obligation and is constantly criticized, being unwelcome is normal. The success of deep distribution promotion owes much to the early "eight-step method." It expanded terminal coverage and drove sales growth. Now, deep distribution has evolved into a trilogy: stock pressure, buying terminal resources, and promotion. In the face of weak sell-through, these are completely ineffective actions. In comparison, the "eight-step method" seems weak. But in an era of growth, even the naive "eight-step" was very effective. Now, first-tier brands have "closed management" over distributor sales reps—they can only do that brand, not others; terminal resources are bought out, sometimes exclusively; warehouses are filled, and then large amounts of near-expiry goods are returned. Despite all this, sales decline cannot be stopped. In the shrinking era, sales reps responsible for deep distribution can no longer bear the burden of sales growth. From the results, a role that cannot achieve sales growth is unreasonable. Actions that don't lead to growth are ineffective. Thus, sales reps who can't achieve growth are not good reps. From the process, in early deep distribution, listing meant growth; now, more stock pressure leads to more channel problems. Years ago, I warned that coverage rate is a wrong guide. Further analysis: the outcome of deep distribution is increased industry concentration in FMCG. Deep distribution is not difficult in action, but why did only first-tier brands grow and many SMEs disappear over 20 years? First, deep distribution requires brand support. This is the dual-drive model of brand and distribution, which is indispensable in the long run. Second, national deep distribution requires six levels of channel from brand headquarters to consumers. Achieving six-level channel management is a huge challenge, and only well-managed companies can meet it. So, deep distribution actions initially expanded coverage, but later squeezed competitors until most FMCG industries became oligopolistic. Therefore, in the decade of FMCG shrinkage, the sales rep role, which performed deep distribution, finally bore the responsibility for sales decline for an era. Excessive Distribution Is Adding Chaos! Many are unwilling to admit deep distribution no longer works. Without it, sales would fall faster. So, as sales decline, they intensify deep distribution. The result: no sell-through at the terminal, but stock pressure continues. Inventory piles up, low-price cross-region sales are severe, and near-expiry goods are rampant. The channel is in chaos. These actions not only fail to increase sales but also add chaos. After overstocking, near-expiry goods must be recovered. Isn't that adding chaos? Policy-driven stock pressure turns policies into a source of price chaos. Isn't that adding chaos? Channel price chaos and cross-region sales are severe. Isn't that adding chaos? Any action taken to meet monthly sales KPIs might be adding chaos. If sales reps are doing chaotic actions, would distributors welcome them? Would retailers? Being unwelcome is not the reps' fault but the role's responsibility. Effective Actions I once did a behavior analysis of a company's sales reps. I selected 20 reps and analyzed how they visited customers (distributors). Background: The company's distributors were organized by county, and reps worked an average of 22 days per month, managing an average of 7 distributors. With a month as the analysis period, there were three ways reps visited customers. First: Visit one customer (distributor) daily, covering all in a month, three times. The average collection (the company didn't assess sales, only collections) was 10,000 yuan per day. This was the most common. Second: Reps spent long periods with major customers and visited small ones occasionally. The average collection was 10,000 yuan per month. This was also common. The result was that major customers remained major, and small ones remained small. Third: Spend three days with one customer. Day one: go to the market with the customer for promotional activities; day two: visit terminals with the customer to discuss the month's activities; day three: move to the next customer. With an average of 7 customers, the month was just filled. The average collection was 30,000 yuan. When the results came out, I was shocked. When I showed them to the sales director, he was also shocked. The same market visits resulted in a threefold difference in collections. What caused this difference? The first and second methods were deep distribution; the third was promotion targeting C-end users, which can be called user operation. This result greatly influenced my later proposal of bC integration. Because deep distribution-style visits are meaningless in the shrinking era. The meaningful action is helping b-end stores carry out activities targeting C-end. In other words, deep distribution aims to make my brand's sales larger within the store's sales share; bC integration aims to make the b-end store's sales larger, thereby making my brand's sales larger. I summarize this as "C-end increment in exchange for b-end stock." As long as sales reps can bring increment, who wouldn't welcome them! Role Value What should frontline personnel do correctly? Different eras have different answers. Salesmen did to B work, sales reps do to b work, so the next step should be to C work. From the results, it's work that can continuously generate increment in a certain period. Any action that cannot generate long-term increment is a sham. In 2006, I did a special feature in the media titled "Do work that contributes to sustained sales growth." This is my basic judgment of whether a person or role has value. Note the key phrase: "sustained sales growth." This is key to judging whether sales reps' actions are correct. In the early days, salesmen were valuable because to B work could continuously generate increment. Later, salesmen lost value, and sales reps gained value because to b work could continuously generate increment. Now, the value of sales reps' work has decreased because to b can no longer generate sustained increment. So, what role is valuable? Wholesalers → Distributors → User Operators. This is the direction of intermediary channel evolution. Distributors mainly distribute; operators mainly operate users. Wholesalers and salesmen, distributors and sales reps, operators and promoters (let's call them that for now) are ecological pairs. Being unwelcome means they are unwelcome together. In an ecosystem, changing one is meaningless; changing together is valuable. Distributors and sales reps both work with the b-end (terminals). It's not that their actions have lost value, but that actions targeting b-end no longer generate increment. So, what are the current increment actions? I believe it's user operation, which touches the C-end. Of course, the b-end remains important because bC integration is the bridge to the C-end. In recent years, the companies I serve have all done user operation with excellent results and sustained growth. Why is there such a contrast between b-end and C-end work? Targeting b-end is like opening the upstream floodgates to flush the channel, hoping the water will open it. Targeting C-end is clearing the downstream to welcome upstream traffic, ensuring smooth flow. There are so many C-ends; can to C work be completed? The purpose of to C is to open the sell-through gate, not to do it daily. So, the next step is not to strengthen sales reps' skills or management but to shift to to C work that can generate sustained increment. In the new to C role, whoever does it will succeed. Of course, most don't know how yet. What should the to C role be called? I don't know; we need consensus. I currently call it "promoter." I've seen at the frontline that if someone truly promotes products, the frontline welcomes them. Beginning Change Transformation is very difficult. Why? First, habits are hard to change, and collective habits are even harder. Second, during transformation, both systems must operate. Like the dual-track price system in the early reform era, running two systems simultaneously can lead to not learning the new and forgetting the old. Isn't that like the story of the man who imitated the Handan walk? Based on my transformation experience, it usually involves the following steps: First, form a new organization that doesn't carry traditional KPIs, dedicated to generating increment. The new organization should be based on a few excellent people from the traditional system, with new hires as the majority. New hires must operate under new rules. If deep distribution is a to b organization (distribution), the new organization should be to C. Precisely, it should be a direct distribution organization. Second, create benchmarks and produce coaches. Why benchmarks? Because a few can be persuaded, but most are conquered. Successful facts convince better than reasoning. The greater the contrast of benchmarks, the more educational. In the process, excellent people will emerge. They are crucial seeds; use them as coaches to train new hires. Why emphasize coaches in the new organization? New frontline actions are hard to train but easy to learn on-site. So, coaches are a key role. Even so, getting to b people to do to C work is difficult because many see to C as less dignified than to b. Asking a to b person to do to C is seen as "looking down on them," a waste of talent. Therefore, I often say that enterprise transformation is not about traditional transformation succeeding but about one generation of old people dying out and a new generation rising. **🔺