Why I don't buy Milo online: the ceiling of DTC and the real advantage of F2B2B2C
Originally written in Chinese. Translated with AI, reviewed by Gary. Read the Chinese original →
One night my kid asked for Milo. I didn't order on Shopee, didn't open TikTok Shop, and certainly didn't go to Nestlé's website. I just walked downstairs in my slippers to the corner shop, grabbed a pack and came back. Three minutes, done.
If there's Milo right downstairs, would I still drive to the nearby Speed99? Probably not.
This small thing points to a bigger question:
Why do hit products like Milo actually sell poorly online?
Then look at retail chains like Speed99, KK Mart and FamilyMart. No livestreams, no private communities, no online store, yet very high repeat purchase and customer loyalty.
Are they a "brand"? Maybe not by the traditional definition. But they outlive many brands, and they're far more stable.
This isn't a content problem, and it isn't a private-traffic problem. It's a "relationship path" problem.
1. The reality of the DTC model
Over the past few years, DTC (Direct to Consumer) became the fashionable thing. Many brands built their own websites, online stores and communities, hoping to create a closed private-traffic loop.
But most brands found that, the further they went, the harder, more expensive and more exhausting the road became. There are three main reasons:
1. Traffic keeps getting more expensive
For DTC, there are only a few ways to get traffic: paid ads, social content, influencer selling, and your own media. None of them are cheap, and none are stable.
Platform traffic is still the most effective path, but platforms are getting stricter about external links and limit traffic being "smuggled" out, while ad auctions keep pushing acquisition costs up.
2. Users are hard to activate and even harder to keep
Even if traffic comes in, users rarely stay.
Apps and websites are opened rarely, most community members are silent, and official-account read rates are under 1%. Without a promotion, nobody cares. With one, it's a one-off transaction.
Take fast-moving consumer goods: the buying motive is "nearby + habit + instant gratification". An online store has no advantage there to begin with.
3. Long conversion paths, poor monetisation
Without trust and real touchpoints in daily life, DTC relies on heavy promotion to convert. Selling on discounts for the long term squeezes profit, damages how the brand is perceived, and rarely builds a truly sustainable repeat-purchase structure.
The end result: burning money, working hard, getting nowhere.
The brand tries hard, but consumers feel nothing, and offline channels start to doubt the brand's direction.
2. You think you're "nurturing users", but you forgot the person in the middle
F2B2B2C is the business model with more life in it.
Factory (F) → brand / platform (B1) → small operators: shops, stores, group-buy leaders (B2) → consumer (C)
In practice, I've seen this model sit closer to reality than F2C, and it has more staying power.
1. Small operators own "relationship assets"
A convenience store owner and regulars, a social seller and friends and family, a group-buy leader and a moms' group. These small operators may have no content skills, but they have high-trust connections. They aren't "exposure", they are "relationships in daily life".
When a brand connects directly with users, it is usually just delivering information. Small operators connect through feelings, reminders from someone you know, and service in the moment.
2. Brands don't have to do everything themselves
Under F2C, a brand has to build its own store, run its own content and grow its own users. Every part is heavy. In an F2B2B2C structure, the brand only needs to focus on product and supply chain. The platform coordinates in the middle and enables small operators to run the front end. The whole thing is lighter and easier to replicate.
3. Profit sharing beats buying traffic
Rather than spending money to buy traffic, share a percentage of profit after the sale.
It makes the incentive structure healthier, and gives everyone involved a reason to keep the customer relationship going for longer.
From our own tests, the ROI from this kind of mechanism is generally better than spending the same budget directly on ads.
3. Rethinking private traffic: not owning users, but sharing relationships
The traditional view says private traffic is "my user pool". But looking at the data and the structure, public traffic is really the platform's private traffic (the platform controls it).
Truly sustainable private traffic is the relationship chain of small operators, shared across every node in the supply chain.
The essence of private traffic isn't "collecting contact details", but "who will look after this relationship for the long term".
In short: DTC isn't wrong, but its limits are narrow
DTC is fundamentally about closing the distance between brand and consumer, with data connections and user feedback flowing back into the product. But if all that is left is building your own store, running communities and chasing referral loops, then DTC has been misunderstood.
In Malaysia, in fast-moving consumer goods, in high-frequency, low-margin categories, DTC that bypasses channels can hardly scale.
The more realistic path:
- DTC is a strategic direction: data connection with consumers that feeds back into the product
- F2C is one form of it, not the whole thing
- In Malaysia, in FMCG, in high-frequency low-margin industries, bypassing channels is almost impossible
- The more effective path is turning channels into "partners who run the relationship together", enabled by platform mechanisms, growing together
Many brands think middlemen eat their profit. In fact, middlemen build relationships you can't build yourself.
Real private traffic isn't having your own website. It's whether you have someone willing to say for you: "Milo comes with a free cup today, want a pack?"