Very few people are willing to take losses voluntarily; those who are willing to take losses are usually traps. For example, funding schemes, financial schemes, pyramid schemes, etc. From the perspective of the implementing entity, it first appears to incur losses, while from the consumer's perspective, it first appears to gain benefits.

Is it true that all losses in this world are scams? Not necessarily, but it is unrealistic to expect someone to suffer losses for a lifetime, so overall, the losses of the implementing entity are stage-specific and have long-term profitability stability.

Therefore, if the operating entity is not a scammer, taking losses is merely a stage-specific marketing strategy. Of course, this kind of loss is not meant to make consumers instantly rich; capital is meant to create user dependence and habits, while marketing is for better service.

Thus, the purpose of capital is to feed the pigs with sugar, and marketing generally fails if it does not match a service model. However, it must be said that not every decision-maker can achieve guaranteed results; the same method may yield vastly different outcomes when different people make decisions and implement them.

Someone who often says, "I am here to make money; I come to earn your money," while being quite frank and honest, simultaneously denies his continuous value output. This approach may have been effective twenty years ago, but twenty years later, it only seems childish.

Once, a friend collaborated with a partner who was said to have come from a state-owned enterprise. In the 1990s, he made some money using a rather rogue approach, so he believed that his methods were still invincible after leaving the state-owned enterprise.

However, he not only failed to solve his partner's problems but also imposed greater loss pressure on him, ultimately becoming the last straw that broke the camel's back.

I once mentioned this issue to my friend, but he always believed he had the ability to manage it. In the end, I did not see them succeed; instead, the immense pressure and lack of a regular life led to health issues.

Coincidentally, over a decade ago, when I was still in the agricultural materials industry, my boss, upon first encountering some so-called successful individuals on the internet, began to express his sincere views that businesses are not charities. While he was not wrong, it also reflected his dulled perception of marketing; he was unlikely to use loss marketing strategies and found it hard to understand the true essence of it.

I once visited a relatively large store with him, and he believed that as long as his products were good and he offered satisfactory profit margins, the other party should accept his cooperation. In his view, only monetary benefits were the sole sales method.

However, in the past, his salespeople were unable to reach cooperation with this store. When I arrived at this store, I simply observed and concluded that they could not possibly lack essential products. Introducing products often had the opposite effect. Therefore, instead of watching them busy, it was better to get involved, and in the end, they actively requested cooperative products and directly paid for the goods.

In fact, the other party had no intention of long-term cooperation; it was not a denial of me but a denial of this company. To achieve long-term cooperation, it is necessary to continuously establish scarce relational bonds.

So, during the festival at that time, I specifically called to greet them. The other party was very surprised and happy to receive the call, and we had further cooperation expectations. However, at this moment, the leader of the company found me and began to say that the store's first order was too small. In short, his words were filled with mockery.

The reason for this situation stemmed from our subsequent argument. I believed that the female entrepreneur of this store did not lack product resources but rather lacked a trustworthy cooperative relationship. However, he disagreed and insisted that it was precisely because they valued his products that they placed orders. Neither of us could convince the other.

Ultimately, due to the market shifting to another relative of his, cooperation could no longer be achieved. The idea that products equate to power did not succeed as a result.

In fact, the agricultural materials market cannot be managed with simple linear thinking. The approach of always pursuing simplicity is essentially just doing a proposition of one plus one equals two every day, lacking necessary presentation power and failing to establish good cooperative relationships. Ultimately, one can only attempt to make a fuss over products, but the problem is that people have always considered products to be the least reliable.

Why do I say this? Because the product is in your hands, the pricing power is in your hands; if you sell well, you can raise the price, and if you sell poorly, you hurt yourself, so it is impossible to stock up on a large quantity at once.

The most obvious example is that a manufacturer had cheap raw materials, and the wholesale price set by the distributor was also relatively low for micro-fertilizers, which did not sell well in various regions. However, a newly developed customer in my area sold very well, and the sales price he set was not low because, from his consumer group’s perspective, a price that is too low often does not lead to purchases.

Later, when I promoted in other regions, I also adopted this retail pricing strategy, but they could not understand it. However, after research, I found that this customer was selling well, so the boss immediately raised the price, compressing this customer's profit margin to almost nothing. This operation resulted in other regions being even less willing to sell, with direct sales volume approaching zero, and this customer, who had good sales, stopped ordering after the last batch of products.

At that time, I was present, and this customer casually told me that they could still exchange after the price increase. He said what he meant, and ultimately exchanged. However, the boss thought this was the customer having an issue with me and scolded me, saying, "They are unhappy with you; do you think you are friends with them? Not at all!"

I don't know if we are friends, but when I visited him, he even took me to see his new home. Personally, I believe this abrupt price increase measure is inappropriate. First, the manufacturer did not actually raise prices; there are no walls that do not let the wind through, and the manufacturer's salespeople will also go to the market. Once trust is lost, it will affect overall cooperation.

Secondly, products should not have a one-size-fits-all pricing strategy; some are core profit products, some are traffic products, and some are products that maintain relationships to promote overall profitability. However, he could not understand the nuances here and insisted on a one-size-fits-all approach, even wanting to raise it further.

I remember once negotiating cooperation with a major sales client. After reaching an agreement, during the drafting of the contract, I thought his pricing was too high and inappropriate. However, he did not accept my suggestion but said that by raising the price, he could wait for the other party to negotiate again. As a result, the other party was not naive; upon seeing the contract price, they knew the other party did not have good intentions, and both sides had their own calculations, resulting in mutual harm.

This may be his past business experience, but what he does not realize is that his experience is based on the fact that many stores were under his company's name back then, which had a certain degree of coercion, not because this method was effective.

I remember that after a product with foreign lineage obtained authorization, he began to implement a pricing strategy. At that time, he came to me for advice. I believed that a fair pricing strategy could quickly push the product to market, achieving market layout when sellers had high expectations. However, he rejected my opinion, believing it should follow the foreign product model, charging according to the retail price and then giving rebates to cooperative stores, as this strategy was successful for foreign products. Ultimately, the product became overstocked, and coupled with the promoter advertising it as a panacea, it directly killed the product's vitality. At that time, I repeatedly emphasized not to promote the concept of a universal remedy, but he still printed advertisements and banners with the promoter without notifying me, claiming it could cure any disease and was the world's number one miracle drug, a universal remedy!

Looking back now, he was always thinking of methods to control, suppress, and calculate, ultimately shooting himself in the foot.