In recent years, as the initial surge of new consumer brands has subsided, attention has refocused on established "heritage brands." The real challenge now under study is how a brand can achieve initial success, scale sustainably, and maintain its legacy over time. This case study traces L'Oreal Group's branding strategy evolution since its entry into the Chinese market. Founded in 1909 with a single hair dye product, L'Oreal expanded through strategic acquisitions to become the world's largest cosmetics group. Today, it boasts a portfolio of over 500 brands encompassing hair color, skincare, makeup, and fragrances. Beginning in 1996, L'Oreal introduced diverse brands such as Lancôme and Garnier to China, achieving significant success in the luxury cosmetics segment. However, its penetration into the broader mass skincare market proved challenging. L'Oreal acquired local favorites like Mininurse and Yue-Sai in 2004 to bolster its presence in this arena. Unfortunately, these acquisitions did not meet expectations and gradually faded from prominence. By 2022, L'Oreal had established an investment firm in China, focusing on equity investments to foster deeper collaboration with local brands. L'Oreal's journey in China illustrates a strategic evolution from brand introduction to local acquisitions and subsequent equity partnerships. Each strategic pivot reflects a nuanced understanding of market dynamics, a critical review of past approaches, and an ongoing commitment to innovation in response to evolving challenges.

"Chi Forest, a beverage company founded in 2016, breathed new life into the long-unchallenged Chinese beverage market with its innovative, internet-focused approach. The company was renowned for rapidly creating differentiated blockbusters, including its signature Sparkling Water, Alien Electrolyte Water, R Tea, and Milk Tea Classic. Its Sparkling Water, launched in 2018, quickly took the market by storm and has since maintained its leading position. Over the next three years, Chi Forest saw its sales revenue skyrocket 15-fold from ¥160 million to ¥2.5 billion, making it a force to be reckoned with in China's beverage industry. Chi Forest's rapid rise to prominence captured the attention of entrenched industry leaders, prompting them to unite in an attempt to thwart its development. These industry giants introduced their own sugar-free sparkling water products mirroring Chi Forest's offerings, pressured distributors to exclude its products from their channels, and persuaded suppliers to cut ties with Chi Forest. Flush with financial and logistics resources, these large companies sought to disrupt Chi Forest's dominance in the market. Faced with these hurdles, Chi Forest recalibrated its operational approach. To mitigate its comparative disadvantages, this internet-based company began adopting strategies similar to those of traditional beverage companies, such as building its own production facilities, expanding its distribution networks, and restructuring its organizational framework. In addition, Chi Forest aggressively ventured into the cola sector, a segment long dominated by the duopoly of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. By launching cola-flavored sparkling water, Chi Forest aimed not only to disrupt the market with another innovative product but also to demonstrate its boldness and readiness to take on the industry titans.

This case study series delves into the innovative evolution of the Yang brothers' business model, segmented into three main parts: Cases A, B, and C. Case A reveals the captivating transformation of the Yang brothers from comedic influencers to pioneers in live stream sales, marking a significant milestone as they became the first to amass over a hundred million followers on TikTok. Their unprecedented popularity and commercial triumph, however, came with its own set of challenges. Numerous editors began segmenting their live streams into a variety of short clips for unauthorized distribution, aiming for profits but instead causing consumer confusion and discontent. The critical issue at hand is: How do the Yang Brothers intend to tackle the problem of these unauthorized clip accounts? Case B follows Case A and outlines the Yang brothers' clever solution: they began licensing their livestreams to clip editors, thus entering the livestream clip distribution market. This savvy strategy not only boosted their profits but also benefited the clip editors, consumers, and other stakeholders involved. However, the rapid increase in licensed editors eventually led to market saturation. The pressing question now is: What strategies should the Yang brothers employ to address this oversaturation? Case C follows Case B and introduces the launch of 'Everyone's Assistant' by the Yang brothers, a platform embodying a novel business model designed to address the saturation and competitive challenges in the livestream clip market. This platform brought a wide array of clip editors and livestreamers together for collaboration, thereby standardizing the industry and accruing significant benefits for both the Yang brothers and other stakeholders. However, this innovation also ignited discussions on the heightened competition and concerns about product integrity, prompting contemplation on the future trajectory of 'Everyone's Assistant': What strategies should the Yang brothers adopt to ensure sustainable expansion of this business segment? This series illustrates the dynamic process of business model innovation navigated by the Yang brothers against the backdrop of an ever-changing stakeholder landscape. Each phase of innovation not only resolves immediate issues but also introduces new challenges, driving the need for continuous innovative solutions. Through relentless innovation, the "Crazy Yang Bros" brand has seen its value soar, benefiting an expanding network of stakeholders-an exemplary model of adaptability and success worth studying.

Supplement to The Crazy Yang Bros (A): Revolutionizing Live Commerce with Comedy. Case B outlines the Yang brothers' clever solution: they began licensing their livestreams to clip editors, thus entering the livestream clip distribution market. This savvy strategy not only boosted their profits but also benefited the clip editors, consumers, and other stakeholders involved. However, the rapid increase in licensed editors eventually led to market saturation. The pressing question now is: What strategies should the Yang brothers employ to address this oversaturation?

Supplement to The Crazy Yang Bros (A): Revolutionizing Live Commerce with Comedy/ (B): Pioneering Livestream Clip Distribution. Case C introduces the launch of 'Everyone's Assistant' by the Yang brothers, a platform embodying a novel business model designed to address the saturation and competitive challenges in the livestream clip market. This platform brought a wide array of clip editors and livestreamers together for collaboration, thereby standardizing the industry and accruing significant benefits for both the Yang brothers and other stakeholders. However, this innovation also ignited discussions on the heightened competition and concerns about product integrity, prompting contemplation on the future trajectory of 'Everyone's Assistant': What strategies should the Yang brothers adopt to ensure sustainable expansion of this business segment?

Founded in 2014, SuperMonkey is an innovative gym brand that has disrupted the traditional gym membership model with its "pay-per-session, no annual memberships; professional coaches, no sales pitches" approach. Initially, SuperMonkey offered a unique fitness experience through shipping container gym pods before shifting its focus to group classes. SuperMonkey's gyms are lively group class spaces where clients can follow professional instructors, immersed in dynamic lighting and music. This transforms what could be a solitary and monotonous workout into an energetic and social event. By the end of 2022, SuperMonkey had attracted over 500,000 paying users and had opened or was planning nearly 200 stores in first-tier and emerging cities. However, as market competition intensifies, SuperMonkey faces new challenges, particularly regarding its pace of expansion. HILEFIT, a competitor established around the same time, had expanded to 1,300 locations by 2023. SuperMonkey must now carefully consider whether to maintain the quality of its fitness services to ensure customer satisfaction or accelerate the opening of new stores to capture a larger market share. This dilemma poses a significant test of their strategic decision-making skills.

In Case (A), ZUIG attempted to acquire a controlling stake in Zhenxing Biochem through a tender offer but faced opposition from both its board of directors and its largest stakeholder, Zhenxing Group. The opposition parties used various tactics to fend off the tender offer, such as halting trading, filing real-name reports, and pursuing lawsuits. Zhenxing Group even transferred all of its shares to its white knights, KAISA Group Holdings Ltd. (KAISA) and Cinda Securities Shenzhen Office (Cinda Securities), but its efforts proved unsuccessful. Ultimately, ZUIG replaced Zhenxing Group as the largest shareholder in Zhenxing Biochem. In Case (B), a fierce battle broke out between ZUIG and KAISA for control of Zhenxing Biochem after the successful tender offer. Eventually, an agreement was reached, and ZUIG gained control of the company. Under ZUIG's governance, Zhenxing Biochem embarked on a new phase of development through strategic partnerships, asset restructuring, and other initiatives. This case study provides a comprehensive overview of the target company's development before the tender offer, the complex tender offer and anti-takeover measures, and the challenging integration process that followed. The entire process was characterized by ups and downs, making it a classic example of a hostile takeover that provides valuable lessons for all market participants.

Supplement to ZUIG's Tender Offer Takeover of Zhenxing Biochem (A): Barbarians at the Gate. In Case (B), a fierce battle broke out between ZUIG and KAISA for control of Zhenxing Biochem after the successful tender offer. Eventually, an agreement was reached, and ZUIG gained control of the company. Under ZUIG's governance, Zhenxing Biochem embarked on a new phase of development through strategic partnerships, asset restructuring, and other initiatives. This case study provides a comprehensive overview of the target company's development before the tender offer, the complex tender offer and anti-takeover measures, and the challenging integration process that followed. The entire process was characterized by ups and downs, making it a classic example of a hostile takeover that provides valuable lessons for all market participants.

This case describes the strategies and business models of Alibaba and JD.com (JD). After more than ten years of development, two giants-Alibaba, the world's largest online marketplace operator, and JD.com (JD), China's largest online direct sales operator-towered over China's e-commerce industry. In 2014, Alibaba and JD were listed successively, and in the first half of 2015, they disclosed their first annual reports after listing. These two financial statements attracted the attention of Zhang Wei, a sell-side investment manager who has just graduated from his EMBA program. To prepare for questions from his clients, he has begun to think about the differences between the strategies and business models of Alibaba and JD. How would these differences affect their financial statements? What are the investment highlights of the two companies?

This case describes how Alibaba and JD built their business empires and delivered results using their respective business models after going public. Shortly after Alibaba and JD.com (JD) released their respective annual financial reports in the first half of 2019, Zhang Wei, who had been recently promoted to Investment Manager, got a call from an institutional investor. The investor intended to purchase shares of Alibaba or JD, and hoped to assess the two companies' investment value from a financial perspective. Alibaba and JD adopt different development strategies and business models, ranking the top two in China's e-commerce arena. Which company is of higher investment value: Alibaba or JD? As a business school graduate, Zhang Wei has decided to analyze the two companies' financial statements, and based on that, evaluate the two companies' investment value and investment risk.

This case discusses the phenomenon of high-ratio stock splits in China's capital market. Unlike in the U.S. capital market, where cash dividends are common, high-ratio stock splits in China are often associated with sharp stock price fluctuations and attract close attention from investors, listed companies, and regulators alike. In April 2018, the two Chinese stock exchanges released the most stringent regulations to date to prohibit ineligible companies from carrying out such practices. Nonetheless, there were still many cases where companies found ways to circumvent the rules to continue high-ratio stock splits. In the first half of 2018, Profit Cultural & Creative Group (PCCG) and Zhejiang Wolwo Bio-Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (WolwoPharma) announced a 1.8-for-1 stock split together with a cash dividend of ¥0.25 per share and a 1.8-for-1 stock split together with a cash dividend of ¥0.4 per share, respectively. Although the stock prices of both companies went up initially after the announcement, the prices moved in the opposite direction after the ex-rights date. What were the motivations behind the listed companies' high-ratio stock splits? Why did the stock prices of the two companies show different patterns after the stock split? How should investors respond to high-ratio stock splits?