Regardless of the consumer goods industry you are in, you will notice this phenomenon: Whether you are in food, beverages, clothing, or daily necessities; whether it's milk, drinks, bread, pork, pharmaceuticals, or health products; whether it's men's wear, women's wear, children's wear, luggage, automobiles, home appliances, or sports shoes; whether it's white liquor, beer, skincare, cosmetics, maternal and baby products, office supplies, or sporting goods, the top ten most influential brands in your industry are likely to have been built more than a decade ago. To be more precise, most were established between the late 1990s and around 2010. In the last ten or even fifteen years, despite such a large domestic consumer market, almost no influential consumer brands have emerged, except in emerging industries (such as new energy vehicles, which only became mass-produced in 2008, and smartphones, which only appeared in 2009). Domestic brands are slightly better off, with occasional appearances by Taobao brands or new consumer brands. Foreign brands, on the other hand, have suffered a comprehensive defeat; the ones that can still compete are old-timers like Nike, Adidas, and Coca-Cola, as well as a few luxury brands that entered China early—even older relics. Over the past fifteen years, almost no new strong foreign brands have emerged, while established ones like Pepsi, P&G, and Unilever have been losing ground in China. Japanese home appliances, Korean cars and food—under the overturned nest, few eggs remain intact. Kodak, Fuji, Nokia, and Motorola have completely disappeared due to the demise of their categories. "No brands under the internet" has become a consensus in various consumer goods and marketing industries in recent years. There is nothing new under the sun, and humans have not undergone genetic mutation through the internet. Why is it that in the internet environment, brands cannot (or find it difficult to) emerge? This is worth discussing, not only to clarify doubts and popularize knowledge, but also to help enterprises avoid pitfalls in the future, and more importantly, to help them find a more efficient path to "branding." First, we need to define "what is a brand." There are many academic definitions: some define it as an image system, some as an asset, some as a relationship. But from the perspective of ordinary customers, a brand is a product or enterprise that has a good reputation and is recognized by many people. Here we can see the first pillar of a strong brand: "I know that you know." What does that mean? We know that the vast majority of consumption is not entirely a personal matter, but relative to others. Our consumption is influenced by others, by time, place, emotion, and scenario. Moutai not only needs to be known by those who drink it, but also by those who cannot afford it. Not only must they know it, but they must also envy it. Only then do buyers of Moutai have more motivation. A strong brand must not only be known by its consumers, but consumers must also ensure that others know the brand. Otherwise, the psychological value, emotional satisfaction, and labeling effect that the brand can provide will cease to exist, and the brand premium will naturally disappear. Xiang Yu said, "If one becomes rich and does not return to his hometown, it is like wearing brocade at night—who knows it!" This is human nature; even a hegemon cannot escape it. Therefore, the common philosophy of strong brands is that if a brand cannot show off, it is no different from a salted fish. The internet has made showing off more difficult. Information fragmentation makes the information people receive more divided; everyone receives personalized information, making "I know that you know" extremely difficult to achieve. In the era of centralized media, three months of advertising on CCTV would make the whole country know. Even if you didn't know, I could assume you knew—since so many ads were aired, if you still didn't know, that was your problem. Even without advertising, if you had very conspicuous displays everywhere offline, and the product quality was decent, you could still build a strong brand, like Laoganma. But in the internet environment, unless you can create a billion-level communication like Zibo barbecue or Harbin ice and snow, it is impossible to make everyone know, let alone achieve the realm of "I know that you know." That is even harder. The first pillar of building a strong brand has collapsed. Therefore, as the only program that the whole country can still watch together—CCTV Spring Festival Gala—although its ratings have repeatedly hit new lows and the show is widely criticized, its commercial value remains unattainably high, and advertising prices continue to soar. The second pillar of a strong brand is called "potential energy." What is potential energy? In physics, it refers to the energy stored due to differences in position. "Only with a drop is there potential energy" (as I said a few days ago while chatting with teachers like Liu Chunxiong, Gong Fanggang, Niu Enkun, and Zhang Chi). Therefore: "The number of people can generate potential energy," "High communication volume can generate potential energy," "Those in high positions have potential energy over those in low positions," "Authority can generate potential energy over the masses," etc. The Art of War says: "The force of skilled warriors is like rolling a round stone down a thousand-ren mountain—this is potential." Whether you admit it or not, to achieve a strong brand, you need to make users look up to you. You need to place a big stone hanging two hundred meters above the user's head. In the past, Western culture was strong, and foreign brands naturally had potential energy. Taking a foreign name or pretending to be a foreigner made it easier to build a brand. Brands appearing on more authoritative media had potential energy; ads appearing after the News Broadcast had potential energy. There used to be a saying: seeing an ad once on CCTV is equivalent to seeing it ten times on local TV. Celebrity endorsements could generate potential energy. Being sold in big department stores could generate potential energy. Claiming that sales are far ahead could also generate potential energy. Nowadays, material abundance, media fragmentation, and diverse purchasing methods have changed. Foreign culture has been disenchanted, celebrities have been disenchanted, and authoritative media have also been disenchanted. The means that used to generate potential energy are almost all ineffective. Moreover, internet marketing is a mass movement, a civilian movement. For a brand to be accepted, it needs to lower itself, humble itself, so that people feel it is more down-to-earth. In this situation, it has become extremely difficult for a new brand to establish "potential energy." The second pillar of building a new strong brand has also fallen. I often say: since the advent of modern brand theory, it has become difficult to birth new great brands. This is not to deny modern brand theory, but to say that the concentrated emergence of brands is related to the times and the external environment. European brands mostly appeared in the 19th century; American brands appeared from World War I to after World War II; Japanese brands concentrated in the 1960s and 1970s; Korean brands in the 1970s and 1980s; and Chinese brands concentrated in the 1990s and the 2000s. Brands are like leeks; they grow in clusters. The era when brands appear in concentration is often the early stage of material abundance, a period of rapid consumption growth. People need brands as trust signals and to give meaning to consumption. Brand theory is a summary of the laws of these concentrated brand appearances. When the theory is well summarized, it means that era has ended, and the conditions for mass-producing strong brands have been lost. The even more unfortunate news than the difficulty of branding is that brands are still very important, even more so. Brands that grew up in the 1990s and 2000s have achieved greater growth in the internet era. Brands have become the most efficient way to acquire traffic. Midea, Gree, Moutai, Wuliangye, Wahaha, Nongfu Spring, Yili, Mengniu, Anta, Bosideng—their industry positions are more stable than ever, and the difficulty of challenging them is increasing. Concentration in almost all industries has greatly increased, and the Matthew effect is becoming more evident. Now, all major industries are undergoing structural adjustment. Enterprises that previously gained a leading advantage are using their brands to harvest the market and squeeze small and medium-sized markets. A large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, lacking brand accumulation, are facing severe situations such as halved performance, declining profits, or even losses and bankruptcy. In the internet era, branding has become difficult, especially for creating new brands, which has changed from easy mode to hell mode. But it does not mean brands are unimportant. Algorithms cannot replace brands, white-label products cannot replace brands, and cost-effectiveness cannot replace brands. One of the essences of a brand is relationship. Every enterprise and every product needs to establish a specific relationship with users. New groups, new media, new channels, new content, new scenarios, and new interaction methods all place different requirements on establishing specific relationships. Niche, subculture, meme awakening, circle building, circle breaking, UGC, value high ground, KOLs, and brand missionaries will become the keywords for new brand building. From instilling to co-building, from flooding to blooming in circles. Whoever masters these laws will hold the key to new brand building and the decisive factor in future brand competition. Although the era of brand explosion has passed, there is actually a greater opportunity to become a leading brand like Xiaomi that rises abruptly, or to become a unicorn brand in certain niche areas.