Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 1995–1998

Qinchi bid ¥320M for China's top TV ad slot, and the product couldn't back the fame

A small Shandong distillery won CCTV's top ad slot in 1995 (¥66.66M) and 1996 (¥320M). Sales hit ¥950M, then a 1997 exposé on blended liquor sank it.

Qinchi Distillery · 1996-11

What happened

Qinchi was a small county distillery in Shandong. In November 1995 it stunned Chinese business by winning CCTV's prime-time advertising auction — the '标王', or 'bid king' — with a ¥66.66 million bid, beating far larger rivals. The bet worked: blanket television advertising made an obscure brand famous almost overnight, and sales surged.

Emboldened, Qinchi bid again in 1996 and won the 标王 a second time with ¥320 million. Sales reportedly reached ¥950 million that year, with profit and tax of ¥220 million — several times the year before. The company became the national symbol of advertising-driven growth.

The problem was the product behind the advertising. Qinchi's own capacity to brew base liquor was only about 3,000 tons a year, far short of what it was selling, so it bought bulk liquor from small distilleries in Sichuan and blended it. In 1997 reporters exposed the practice. For a brand built on prestige, the '勾兑' — blending — revelation was fatal: consumers felt they had been sold an image, not a liquor.

Sales collapsed to about ¥300 million in 1997 and Qinchi faded from the market within roughly two years. The case became a staple of Chinese marketing teaching: advertising can buy attention, but a 标王 crown paid for with money the product cannot earn back is a debt, not an asset.

Why it happened

  • Qinchi treated advertising as a substitute for product: it bid amounts far beyond its size for fame, assuming the sales would pay for the exposure.
  • Its own brewing capacity was only about 3,000 tons a year, so the volume the advertising created had to be filled with bought-in bulk liquor blended in.
  • The brand was built on prestige, so the moment reporters revealed the blending, the gap between the image and the product destroyed consumer trust at once.
  • Each year's bid had to be bigger than the last to stay 标王, turning a marketing budget into an arms race the distillery's margins could not sustain.
What it costsales fell from ¥950M to ¥300M; the brand vanishedcostly

The lesson

Advertising buys attention, not a business. Spending beyond what the product can earn back borrows demand from the future; the moment the product is exposed, the bill comes due.

Aftermath

Qinchi's name became shorthand in Chinese business for the 标王 curse — the string of auction winners who rose on advertising and then fell. The case is taught as the canonical example of advertising-driven growth outrunning product capability, and of the danger of letting a marketing budget, rather than the product, define the brand.

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 →