Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2025-03

Qianhe rose on 'zero-additive' soy sauce — the '0' was a trademark, and trust collapsed

Qianhe built its brand on 'zero-additive' soy sauce; a cadmium test and the discovery that '千禾0' was only a trademark broke buyer trust, and sales fell

千禾味业 (Qianhe)

What happened

Qianhe (千禾味业, 603027.SH) is a condiment maker that bet its brand on 'zero-additive' (零添加) soy sauce. The flagship line carried a prominent '千禾0' mark, and the positioning worked: the company's market value climbed from under ¥10B toward ¥25B as buyers paid a premium for a product they read as additive-free.

In early 2025 a third-party magazine (消费者报道) tested 13 'zero-additive' soy sauces and found trace cadmium in twelve of them, including Qianhe's 御藏本酿380天 at 0.011 mg/kg — far below any limit, and naturally present in the crop raw materials. But when the company defended itself, buyers discovered the '0' in 千禾0 was not a claim at all: it was a registered trademark. The trust foundation cracked.

After Consumers' Day the stock fell five sessions straight, wiping out over ¥1.3B of market value before Qianhe's statements steadied it. The local regulator (眉山市场监管局) confirmed the soy sauce met the national standard GB/T 18186, and the company insisted the '0' series used no additives — but consumers were not persuaded. Months later the trademark office declared the '千禾0+' and '千禾零加' marks invalid as deceptive.

The collapse hit the books. 2025 full-year revenue fell 16.3% to ¥2.57B and net profit fell 32.4% to ¥348M — the worst result since the 2016 IPO, a second consecutive decline, with soy sauce down 16% and vinegar down 19%. In September Qianhe stripped the '零添加' wording from its packaging and in October took a 'clean label' certification to rebuild on a safer claim.

Why it happened

  • The whole brand rested on the single word 'zero-additive', so the whole brand was exposed the moment the word was doubted.
  • The '千禾0' trademark was designed to read as 'zero-additive' to buyers without actually being one — a trust base that collapsed on closer reading.
  • Cadmium, though natural and within limits, was the match that lit the word; with no second product pillar, the trust loss went straight to sales.
What it cost¥1.3B value lost in 5 days; 2025 sales −16%, profit −32%costly

The lesson

A brand built on one word breaks with that word. Qianhe's '0' let buyers believe 'zero-additive'; a cadmium test and trademark truth broke trust, and a company with no second pillar paid in sales.

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 →