Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2000–2024

Inoherb missed the e-commerce window, and its two IPO attempts both ended in withdrawal

China's top herbal skincare brand stayed in hypermarkets while rivals moved online; peak sales of ¥2.3bn shrank and both IPO attempts were withdrawn.

Inoherb · 2024

What happened

Inoherb (相宜本草) was founded in Shanghai in 2000 by 封帅, who came from a medical family. Its herbal skincare products sold mainly through hypermarkets and drugstore chains, and that channel bet paid for a decade: revenue rose from ¥377 million in 2009 to ¥1.335 billion in 2011 — when the KA (hypermarket/drugstore) channel alone accounted for 76% of sales — and peaked at about ¥2.3 billion in 2013, ahead of Proya's ¥1.43 billion that year. In 2012 it ranked ninth in China's skincare market with a 2.1% share.

In 2012 Inoherb filed to list on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Two years later it voluntarily withdrew, citing a deteriorating KA channel, a penalty from industry and commerce authorities for false advertising, and a falling-out with early investor Capital Today. The timing was fatal: between 2015 and 2020 e-commerce became the industry's leading channel and digitally native brands captured the younger customers. Inoherb had entered Taobao as early as 2007 through agency Liren Lizhuang, but it only took its Tmall flagship in-house in 2020 — a step industry analysts considered years late.

Sales slid to about ¥1.5 billion by 2015, more than 30% below the peak, and the brand aged along with its hypermarket customers. In November 2022 Inoherb signed an IPO tutoring agreement with CICC to try again for an A-share listing. That plan was terminated in 2024: the tutoring process exposed an over-reliance on dealers — a large, scattered distributor network — just as the national cosmetics market contracted for the first time in a decade, with retail sales falling 4.5% in 2022.

Why it happened

  • KA dependence: hypermarket and drugstore channels were 76% of sales in 2011; as that channel declined and e-commerce rose, the brand was slow to follow — its Tmall flagship went in-house only in 2020.
  • Withdrawing the 2012 IPO at the peak: the brand never recaptured the timing, staying private through the 2015–2020 window while rivals raised capital and built digital-native brands.
  • Brand aging became structural: by the time it chased a listing again, Inoherb read as a brand for older shoppers, with none of the digital-native pull of the young C-beauty labels.
  • The second attempt died on the same structure: CICC's tutoring exposed a dealer-heavy distribution model, and the 2024 termination followed the first decline in national cosmetics retail in a decade.
What it costPeak ¥2.3bn sales fell to ~¥1.5bn; two listings withdrawncostly

The lesson

A channel mix is a decision that compounds. Inoherb stayed in hypermarkets while rivals moved online, and by the time it chased a listing, the market had already re-ranked it.

Aftermath

Inoherb continued as a private company after the 2024 withdrawal. It signed fresh celebrity endorsements in 2025–2026 and, in March 2026, completed its first self-filed registration of a new cosmetic ingredient — still without a listing.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →