The new forces of e-commerce cannot hide anymore

brocade

follow with interest

2025-03-25

1 Comment

1004 views

3 collections

17 minutes

  B-end product managers need to conduct pre-sales demonstrations, customized solutions, contract signing, etc., while C-end product managers need to plan activities, operate content, and motivate users, etc

In the past 8 years, the Chinese e-commerce industry has undergone tremendous changes. Once dominant in the market, Taobao and JD.com have now reduced their market share from 93% to 50%. At the same time, the "new power of e-commerce" represented by Tencent, Pinduoduo and Tiktok rose rapidly and became the backbone of the industry. This article will delve into the reasons behind this phenomenon and explore how the "new forces of e-commerce" can achieve efficient matching between supply and demand through demand equality, supply equality, and rule equality, and promote the e-commerce industry from "customer collusion" to "user co governance".

In 2017, it was only 8 years ago. According to a research report by China International Capital Corporation, during the e-commerce boom of that time, the two major players, Taobao and JD.com, were at their peak, with a combined market share of 93%. The turn of the times is quiet and rapid. In 2025, 8 years from now, this number will be 50%.

The other side of the 8-year dramatic change is the rise of a cluster of "new e-commerce forces", codenamed "Teng Dou Pin".

This may be the most important paradigm evolution of China's Internet industry in the recent cycle. Following the "equal rights revolution" from "customer collusion" to "user co governance", new forces in e-commerce have taken center stage:

8 years ago, WeChat, which was still "persevering in restraint", has now reached an "atomic level" in its e-commerce ecosystem;

Pinduoduo, which had not yet gone public 8 years ago, has now firmly secured the second place in China's e-commerce industry;

Tiktok, whose future was uncertain eight years ago, has become the third largest e-commerce platform in China.

Is the phenomenon of the new e-commerce force represented by "Teng Dou Pin" a technological inevitability or a victory of the thinking and cognition of the new generation of entrepreneurs?

The dramatic changes of 2018

Let's first review the changes in e-commerce market share in recent years:

In 2017, shelf e-commerce was booming. According to a research report by China International Capital Corporation, the market share of Taobao and JD.com, two major players in terms of GMV, once reached an astonishing 93%. In 2020, three years later, this number was 85%.

In 2023, the sky suddenly changed, and Pinduoduo surpassed JD.com with a market share of 18.3%, breaking the dominant market share monopoly of Taobao and JD.com, and ascending to the second place in the industry.

What does a product manager need to do if there is no product available?

In the process of creating a product from scratch, it is not easy to play the role of a product manager. Apart from writing requirements, writing requirements, writing requirements, there are many things to do. A product manager is not just someone who troubles you and makes demands in your eyes

View details>

Until 2024, according to the data released by 36 Krypton, Pinduoduo GMV will reach 5.2 trillion yuan and Tiktok GMV will reach 3.5 trillion yuan. Their market share will rank second and third in the industry after Taotian.

As of the end of 2024, based on the market size of e-commerce totaling 22 trillion GMV, the market share of Taobao and JD.com is exactly around 50% - new forces are entering the city, and traditional shelves are no longer in their prime.

Image: Mainstream e-commerce platforms estimate market share trends based on GMV, source: China International Capital Corporation, Jinsatin calculation

The quiet reshuffle of the e-commerce landscape is undoubtedly due to a multitude of reasons, but at its core, we can still provide our perspective on the deconstruction and reshaping of the power chain in the e-commerce industry, which is almost a "carefully designed" battle.

In other words, while the defenders were repeatedly calibrating the accuracy of the navigation on the old compass, the new forces quietly completed the competition by swapping routes and sails.

For observers familiar with the e-commerce history of the past 10 years, the logic behind it is not difficult to understand:

In the past few years, the mainstream narrative of e-commerce platforms has always revolved around the primacy of "platform value", constructing a classic theory of "human goods field" that fully permeates every pore in the industrial chain from top to bottom, ultimately becoming an indispensable industry standard.

On both sides of supply and demand, especially on the supply side, under the guidance of this theory, they each take their place and follow the platform rules as the Bible, sitting in rows and sharing fruits.

Throughout the entire process, only the top suppliers - only brand owners - have the ability to pay for the platform's marketing expenses and "traffic tax" through product premiums, which are able to compete with the platform.

Most of the platform's revenue comes from this, which naturally transmits more power to top brands. In order to attract top tier supply, we have to continue investing to ensure platform value, which increases costs and instead relies more on top brands.

In the long run, a prominent feature of the narrative logic of the e-commerce industry is the collusion between the platform and the supply side leaders.

The game of power has an end.

This end is what we later saw: with the evolution of technology and the change of cognition, external new forces have violently cracked existing rules, deconstructed the inherent power chain, and ultimately restructured the game rules on both the supply and demand sides through an "equal rights revolution".

02 Equal Rights Revolution

It should be clarified that mainstream public opinion is not optimistic about the growth rate of consumption, but from a data perspective, the growth trend of the e-commerce market has not changed: in 2024, the total retail sales of urban consumer goods still increased by 3.4%, the disposable income of residents increased by 4.6%, and the online retail sales increased by 7.2%, of which the online retail sales of physical goods increased by 6.5%.

Figure: Growth rates of various consumer indices in 2024, source: Choice Financial Client

This involves a key question, where does the incremental growth of new e-commerce forces come from in the highly competitive e-commerce market?

Some people think it's sinking, after all, the culture of flat exchange is prevalent, and low priced enterprises have ushered in a golden growth period; Some people also believe that it is the female economy, and the lipstick effect is imprinted in the minds of scholars studying consumer history; Some people believe that it is the demographic structure, whether it is the Z generation or the silver haired economy, that is linked to the age of consumption.

Indeed, these statements make sense, as we seem to be able to find increments from any aspect of consumer behavior. But all incremental demands linked to age, product, and even price are indicative, and the actual incremental impact is very limited.

Only from a higher dimensional perspective can we understand the core essence of incremental demand beyond representation:

All research on needs cannot be separated from Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory - everyone actually has five levels of needs, including the middle and high consumption groups who pursue self actualization, as well as physiological and safety needs. Each individual has diverse needs, rather than being satisfied by a single group.

This naturally means that regardless of whether a person is poor or rich, young or old, born in the south or north, there is a need for survival security, seeking respect, and self realization.

In the face of demand, everyone is equal. This is the practical significance of "demand equality":

There is no distinction between physiological and psychological needs. Just like Zhou Libo and Guo Degang's "Coffee Garlic Theory", there is no such thing as "drinking coffee is elegant, eating garlic is vulgar". Essentially, it is the difference in individual needs in different scenarios.

In other words, if a person's true need is only thirst, the platform does not necessarily recommend a high priced coffee or drink to them. Mineral water at an appropriate price may better meet the user's needs.

Everyone's needs deserve to be seen, not by dividing customers by price, not by screening needs by brand, in order to reach the widest range of needs, see increment, and achieve increment.

The new forces of e-commerce not only see the consumption differences between Shanghai and Anhui people, but also the diversity of each user's own needs. It is precisely because of their attention to real needs that new forces are able to achieve equal demand, and then explore and provide richer supply to more efficiently meet users' real needs from different dimensions.

Under the premise of equal demand, the dual aspect of "supply equality" naturally becomes the optimal solution for new e-commerce forces.

Obviously, a single brand supply cannot meet the widest range of demand. Only through a decentralized mechanism that treats every supply equally, whether it is a brand or a white label, and leaves it to consumers to choose and determine supply based on real demand, can the maximum matching of supply and demand be achieved.

In the new force of e-commerce, whether it is content platforms that provide unique content breadth or unique price discovery mechanisms (see "E-commerce Never Ages, Just Enters a New Cycle of 'Price Discovery'" for specific logic), all suppliers are given the same exposure opportunity. As long as they can meet the most basic and refined needs of users at reasonable prices, white label and individual merchants can also gain more exposure.

Users can see "thousand yuan trendy shoes" in the live streaming room of fashion bloggers, and also find "9.9 yuan snacks" in the lively rural courtyards.

The supply side equality logic of new forces is also in line with the real law of supply side development - in the past few years, the core logic of China's supply side industrial development has been shifting from power concentration to decentralization:

From 2019 to 2023, the compound annual growth rate of wholesale and retail legal entities in China reached 15.05%, and a large number of newly established domestic white labels emerged.

According to the data of Cicada Mama's "Annual Report of Tiktok E-commerce in 2024", the growth rate of GMV of new brands will further increase by 12% compared with that of 2023. In most consumer segments, the dark horse brands that grow faster are new brands.

It can be seen that only by following the trend can we find victory or defeat.

Under the equal rights of demand and supply, as a platform, platform rules will inevitably evolve and adapt accordingly. So in the process of the rise of new forces in the past, we have seen a series of unprecedented new rules and concepts such as billions of subsidies, agricultural support, refunds only, and inclusive traffic gradually becoming the standard of e-commerce platforms.

This is rule equality. The core essence can be summarized as: always stand in the shoes of consumers.

The collapse of most business empires actually points to a core contradiction: the supply side is unable to self purify. Because the first priority pursued by the supply side is never to satisfy demand, but to make profits, it may fall into the "static efficiency optimal" trap that vested interests are most comfortable with. The cases of Kodak and Standard Oil are clear.

But by forcing supply through demand, Pareto improvement can be achieved.

Nobel laureate Hayek once proposed the "Consumer Sovereignty Theory" based on Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations": the production decisions of enterprises are essentially an extension of consumer demand, and businesses must compete for consumers' limited budgets through continuous optimization.

So, the platform can only maximize trade by targeting consumers on the demand side and driving supply side optimization and iteration through the most authentic user experience.

Above all, the new forces of e-commerce represented by "Teng Dou Pin" have reshaped a new power structure based on demand equality and supply and rule equality through the deconstruction of power, in order to continuously seize new increments and overturn the existing competitive landscape in the fiercely competitive e-commerce market.

03 User co governance

At this point in the text, a key question remains on the surface: why can new e-commerce forces realize the strategic significance of demand equality and not fall into traditional narrative logic?

Some people believe that new forces stand on top of the experience accumulated in the old world and naturally have stronger abilities. Some people also believe that it is the iteration of technology, and the emergence of recommendation algorithms has broken through the shackles of information matching in search mode.

But these views are actually based on the reverse inference of existing results. The perspective of the rearview mirror cannot answer why companies can still thrive in a business society with faster metabolism.

Taking Pinduoduo as an example, as a player who entered the e-commerce market relatively early among the new forces, it can still achieve high growth with a high base over a longer period of time. This is not simply a technical victory, but essentially the result of a value driven behavior pattern, that is:

Not pursuing 'customer collusion', but practicing 'user co governance'.

Looking back at the past e-commerce game, it can be seen that since the establishment of Pinduoduo, it has emphasized and adhered to the principle of "ultimate consumer rights": through the social fission model, users have become promoters of the platform; In the design of "refund only" products, users have become the supervisors of the platform; In the construction of C2M and agricultural product industry chains, users indirectly become decision-makers through their consumption behavior.

Why is "user co governance" so important and even considered a winning or losing hand in the rise of new forces?

The book "Consumer Behavior" has a chapter dedicated to the deduction of the consumption chain. The core viewpoint is that the incremental demand model is an inverted pyramid logic, where the starting point of demand is different, but the final destination of the supply side may be the same.

Taking treadmills as an example, standing consumers, the platform will realize that the core value of consumption may be blind dates, interviews, and health, and thus explore derivative demands such as clothing accessories, knowledge payment, medical services, etc. It focuses on supply side brand promotion, and the only demand that can be explored may be one treadmill.

Figure: Consumer Link - Evolution of Demand and Supply, Source: Consumer Behavior

The inspiration for the e-commerce industry from this case lies in the fact that only by positioning consumers can e-commerce platforms continuously tap into the core value of transaction behavior. After obtaining a better user experience on the demand side, it is also enough to provide feedback to e-commerce platforms for more improvement space, and supply side merchants can more accurately obtain incremental demand, forming a positive cycle.

The business model of traditional e-commerce platforms, as explained at the beginning of the previous chapter, is essentially a collusion with "customers" to seek maximum benefits and revenue, making it difficult to uncover the broader real needs beneath the iceberg.

Underneath the two sides, a transformation is ultimately inevitable: as industrial power transitions from "centralized control" to "ecological co construction", the monopoly barriers of vested interests are gradually dismantled by technological inclusiveness and infrastructure openness.

04 Conclusion

Finally, let's summarize and organize the core points of this article:

TPD (Tencent, Pinduoduo, Tiktok) and other e-commerce platforms can break away from the traditional narrative framework of the industry. The core of seizing the increment is to reshape the power chain, and achieve efficient matching between supply and demand through three-layer equal rights of demand, supply and rules.

The realization of the equal rights revolution in new energy e-commerce is due to the shift in mindset from "customer collusion" to "user co governance", ultimately driving the e-commerce industry from a logic of power distribution to a logic of value co creation.

This article is written by [Brocade], who is the product manager of Renren. The WeChat official account is [Brocade]. It is original/authorized to be published by Renren, who is the product manager. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.

The title image is from Unsplash, based on the CC0 protocol.

电商新势力藏不住了

锦缎关注

2025-03-25

1 评论1004 浏览3 收藏17 分钟

在过去的8年里，中国电商行业经历了翻天覆地的变化。曾经占据市场主导地位的淘天京东，如今市场份额已从93%降至50%。与此同时，以腾讯、拼多多、抖音为代表的“电商新势力”迅速崛起，成为行业的中坚力量。本文将深入分析这一现象背后的原因，探讨“电商新势力”如何通过需求平权、供给平权和规则平权，实现供需两侧的高效匹配，并推动电商行业从“客户共谋”走向“用户共治”。

2017年，还只是8年以前。根据中金研报数据，彼时的电商盛世里，淘天京东两大龙头如日中天，二者市占率合计达到93%。时代的转身悄然而迅猛。8年之后的2025年，这个数字已是50%。

8年剧变的另一面，是一个“电商新势力”集群的崛起，代号：“腾抖拼”。

这可能是最近一个周期里，中国互联网行业最重要的一起范式演变。因循着一场“‘客户共谋’到‘用户共治’”的“平权革命”，电商新势力，站上舞台中央：

• 8年前还在“坚持克制”的微信，而今其电商生态燎原到“原子层面；

• 8年前尚未IPO的拼多多，而今已经坐稳中国电商行业第二名；

• 8年前尚前途未卜的抖音，而今已经成为中国第三大电商平台。

“腾抖拼”所代表的电商新势力这一现象，究竟是技术的必然，还是新生代企业家思维认知的胜利？

01 8年剧变

先来回顾下电商市场份额近年来转变：

2017年，货架电商如日中天。根据中金研报数据，淘天与京东两大龙头，以GMV为口径的市占率，一度高达惊人的93%。3年之后的2020年，这个数字是85%。

2023年，天色骤变，拼多多以18.3%市占率超越京东，打破了淘天+京东不可一世的份额垄断，登上了行业老二的宝座。

一款产品无到有，产品经理需要做些什么？

在一个产品从无到有的过程中，要做好产品经理这个角色实在是不容易，除了大家都知道的写需求、写需求、写需求，要做的事多着呢。产品经理不是你眼中的只会找你麻烦，提要求..

查看详情 >

直到2024年，根据36氪发布的数据，拼多多GMV来到5.2万亿、抖音GMV则为3.5万亿，二者市占率位居淘天之后，跻身至行业第二与第三。

截至2024年底，根据电商合计22万亿GMV的市场规模测算，淘天+京东的市场份额正好是50%左右——新势力兵临城下，传统货架不复壮年。

图：主流电商平台以GMV口径估算市占率趋势，来源：中金公司，锦缎测算

电商格局的悄然洗牌，原因固然千头万绪，但究其本质，我们仍可开门见山的给出我们复盘后的观点——这是一场近似“精心设计”般的关于电商产业权力链条的解构与重塑战事。

换句话说：当守成者还在旧罗盘上反复校准航道精确度时，新势力却悄悄以调换航线与船帆的方式完成了竞赛。

对于熟稔过去10年电商历史的观察者而言，个中逻辑并不难理解：

过去经年，电商平台的主流叙事，无不围绕着“平台价值”第一性展开，建构出一套经典的“人货场”理论，使之在产业链条从上至下每个孔隙间充分渗透，最终成为不可悖逆的产业圭臬。

供需两侧，尤其是供给侧，则在这一理论的“指导”下，各安其位，以平台规则为圣经，排排坐、分果果。

整个过程中，能够与平台方掰掰手腕的，有且只有那些头部供给——只有品牌商有能力通过产品溢价，来支付平台的营销费用和“流量税”。

平台大部分收益均源于此，自然会传导更多权力给头部品牌。而为了吸引头部供给，又不得不持续投流来保证平台价值，成本抬升，反而更依赖头部品牌。

如是长期以往，曾经的电商产业，其叙事逻辑中一个显著特征便是：平台与供给侧头部间的共谋。

权力的游戏终有尽头。

这个尽头，便是我们后来看到的：伴随技术的演进与认知的更迭，外部新势力对既有规则完成了暴力破解，通过对固有的权力链条的解构，最终以一场“平权革命”，在供需两侧重构游戏规则。

02 平权革命

需要明确的一点是，主流舆论对消费增速并不乐观，但从数据层面看，电商大盘的增长趋势并没有改变：2024年城镇消费品零售总额依旧增长了3.4%，居民可支配收入增长了4.6%，网上零售额7.2%，其中实物商品网上零售额增长了6.5%。

图：2024各项消费指数增速，来源：Choice金融客户端

这便涉及一个关键问题，高度内卷的电商市场中，电商新势力的增量究竟来自何处？

有人认为是下沉，毕竟平替文化盛行，低客单价的企业迎来了黄金增长期；也有人认为是女性经济，口红效应烙印在研究消费历史的学者心中；还有人认为是人口结构，无论是Z世代还是银发经济，题眼都与消费年龄挂钩。

诚然，这些表述都有道理，从消费表象的任一切面出发，我们似乎都能找到增量。但所有和年龄、产品乃至价格挂钩的增量需求，都是表征，实际带来的增量非常有限。

表征之上，从更高维的视角出发，才能理解增量需求的核心本质：

所有关于需求的研究，都离不开马斯洛需求层次理论——每个人其实都有五层需求，追求自我实现的中高消费群体，也有生理和安全需求，每一个个体都有多元的需求，而不是单一的群体满足。

这便天然意味着，毋论一个人贫穷还是富有，年轻还是年长，生在南方还是北方，均有生存安全、寻求尊重和自我实现的需求。

需求面前，人人平等。这便是“需求平权”的现实意义：

生理需求和心理需求没有高低上下之分。就好比周立波和郭德纲的“咖啡大蒜论”，不存在“喝咖啡高雅，吃大蒜低俗”，本质上是不同场景下个体需求的区别。

换句话说，如果一个人真实的需求只是口渴，平台不是非要给他推荐一杯高客单价的咖啡或酒饮，合适价位的矿泉水可能更符合用户的需求。

每个人的需求都值得被看见，不以价格分客户，不以品牌筛需求，才能触达最广泛的需求，看到增量、实现增量。

电商新势力们不仅看到了上海人和安徽人的消费差异，更看到每一个用户自身需求的多样性。正因为对真实需求的关注，新势力们才能够做到需求平权，进而去挖掘提供更丰富的供给，以更高效地满足用户不同维度的真实需求。

在需求平权的前提下，与之一体两面的“供给平权”，便自然而然成为电商新势力的最优解。

显然，单一的品牌供给是无法满足最广域的需求，只有通过去中心化的机制，平等地处理每一种供给：品牌也好、白牌也罢，都交给消费者选择，由真实需求决定供给，才有可能实现供需的最大化匹配。

新势力电商中，无论是内容平台通过特有内容广度，还是特有的价格发现机制（具体逻辑详见《电商永不老，只是进入“价格发现”新周期》），都给予所有供给同样的曝光机会，只要能够以合理的价格满足用户最基本、最细化的需求，白牌、个人商家同样也可以获得更多曝光。

用户可以在时尚博主的直播间看到“千元潮鞋”，也可以在富有生活气息的农家大院找到“9块9的零食”。

新势力的供给侧平权逻辑，亦合乎真实的供给侧发展规律——过去几年，中国供给侧产业发展的核心逻辑，本就是由权力集中走向分散:

• 2019-2023年间，我国的批发零售法人企业数复合增长率达到15.05%，大量新创立的国货白牌涌现。

• 根据蝉妈妈《2024年抖音电商年报》数据显示，新品牌的GMV增速较2023年进一步增长12%，在绝大多数细分消费赛道中，增速较快的黑马品牌都是新品牌。

可见，只有顺应趋势，才能觅得胜负手。

需求平权与供给平权之下，作为平台方，平台规则必然随之嬗变适配。于是过去新势力崛起过程中，我们陆续看到，百亿补贴、农业扶持、仅退款、流量普惠等一些列前所未有崭新规则与概念，逐渐成为电商平台的标配。

这便是规则平权。其核心要义，一言以蔽之：始终站位消费者。

大多数商业帝国的坍塌，实际都指向了一个核心矛盾：供给侧是无法自我净化。因为供给侧追求的第一性从来不是需求满足，而是盈利，因此会陷入既得利益者最舒适的“静态效率最优”陷阱，柯达、标准石油的案例昭然若揭。

但通过需求倒逼供给，是可以实现帕累托改进的。

诺贝尔经济学奖得主哈耶克曾基于亚当斯密的《国富论》提出过“消费者主权理论”：企业的生产决策本质上是消费者需求的延伸，商家必须通过持续优化来争夺消费者的有限预算。

所以，平台只有站位需求侧的消费者，通过最真实的用户感受，倒逼供给侧优化迭代，才能最终实现最大化贸易。

以上，以“腾抖拼”为代表的新势力电商，正是通过对权力解构，重塑了一套以需求平权出发，供给和规则平权为表征的新权力结构，才能在内卷激烈的电商市场中，不断攫取新增量，颠覆了既有竞争格局。

03 用户共治

行文至此，一个关键问题浮于水面：为什么电商新势力能够意识到需求平权的战略意义，而未陷入传统的叙事逻辑之中？

有人认为，新势力站在旧世界积累的经验之上，能力自然更强。也有人认为是技术的迭代，推荐算法的出现，突破了搜索模式下信息匹配的桎梏。

但这些观点，实则都是基于已有结果的反推，后视镜的视角是解答不了为何新陈代谢更快的商业社会，却依然有企业能够基业长青。

仍以拼多多为例，作为新势力中相对较早杀入电商市场的玩家，在更长的周期内，依旧能够实现高基数下的高增长，绝不是因为单纯的技术主义式胜利，本质上还是以价值取向驱动行为模式的结果，即：

不追求“客户共谋”，而是践行“用户共治”。

复盘既往电商棋局可见，自拼多多创立之初至今，就强调并坚持“极致的消费侧权益”这一原则：通过社交裂变模式，用户成为了平台的推广者；在“仅退款”的产品设计中，用户又成为了平台的监督者；在C2M和农产品产业链的建设中，用户通过消费行为，间接成为了决策者。

“用户共治”为何如此重要，甚至堪称新势力崛起的胜负手？

《消费者行为学》专门有一章来讲述消费链路的推演，核心的观点在于，增量需求模型是一个倒金字塔的逻辑，需求出发点不同，但最终供给侧的落脚点可能相同。

以跑步机为例，站位消费者，平台会意识到消费的核心价值可能是相亲、面试、健康从而挖掘出服装配饰、知识付费、医疗服务等衍生需求，而侧重于供给侧的品牌推广，能挖掘的需求，可能就只有一台跑步机。

图：消费链路—需求和供给的演进，来源：《消费者行为学》

这一案例对电商行业的启发在于：只有站位消费者，电商平台才能持续挖掘到交易行为的核心价值，而需求侧获得更良好的用户体验后，也足以反馈给电商平台更多的改良空间，供给侧的商家才能更精准的获取增量需求，形成正循环。

而传统电商平台的商业模型，如上一章节之初所阐述的那样，本质是一种与“客户共谋”，寻求利益最大化，营收最大化，自然难以挖掘冰山之下，更广袤的真实需求。

两厢之下，一场变革最终无可避免：当产业权力从“集中控制”向“生态共建”完成过渡，既得利益者的垄断壁垒，最终被技术普惠和基础设施开放逐步瓦解。

04 结语

行文最后，我们再来总结梳理下本文核心观点：

• TPD（腾讯、拼多多、抖音）等电商平台，能够脱离行业的传统叙事框架，攫取增量的核心在于重塑了权力链条，通过需求、供给、规则的三层平权，实现了供需两侧的高效匹配。

• 新势力电商实现平权革命，是因为思维模式从“客户共谋”走向了“用户共治”，最终推动电商行业从权力分配逻辑转向价值共创逻辑‌。

本文由人人都是产品经理作者【锦缎】，微信公众号：【锦缎】，原创/授权 发布于人人都是产品经理，未经许可，禁止转载。

题图来自Unsplash，基于 CC0 协议。