每经热评丨宗馥莉“去娃哈哈” 难以完成的告别

Core Viewpoint - The internal document leak reveals significant internal conflicts within Wahaha, as the company plans to replace its brand with "Wah Xiaozong" starting from the 2026 sales year, indicating a complete brand overhaul rather than an upgrade [1] Group 1: Brand Transition - The transition from "Wahaha" to "Wah Xiaozong" is not merely a rebranding but a fundamental shift, suggesting that the company is moving away from the legacy of its founder, Zong Qinghou [1] - The ownership structure of Wahaha Group complicates the brand transition, as the trademark belongs to the group and cannot be used without unanimous consent from all shareholders [1][2] Group 2: Historical Issues - The company faces complex historical issues, including disputes over employee stock ownership, litigation regarding stock buyback agreements, and the legality of trademark authorization, alongside ongoing family inheritance disputes [2] - Zong Fuli's attempts to transfer the "Wahaha" trademark to her controlled company were rejected by major shareholders, highlighting her limited control and the high legal risks involved [2] Group 3: Brand Value and Market Challenges - The new brand "Wah Xiaozong" lacks the historical significance and emotional connection that "Wahaha" has built over nearly 40 years, making it unlikely to inherit the brand's estimated value of 90 billion [3] - The current beverage market is highly competitive, with established players like Yuanqi Forest and Nongfu Spring, making it difficult for a new brand without a compelling story or differentiation to succeed [3] Group 4: Leadership and Brand Legacy - Zong Fuli's legitimacy as a successor is questioned; her ability to uphold and expand the Wahaha brand is seen as her primary justification for leadership [4] - Abandoning the "Wahaha" brand for "Wah Xiaozong" could be perceived as a betrayal of consumer trust, undermining her position and the brand's legacy [4][5] Group 5: Future Implications - If the "Wahaha" brand becomes unsustainable, it could lead to a total loss for the company, suggesting that a compromise may be necessary to preserve the brand's value [5]