The direct answer is that the supplied brief points to a disclosure-consistency risk, not a proven violation. Dr. Plant says its authorized stores are distributor-operated and says it does not collect franchise fees, management fees, or brand-use fees. At the same time, the brief says the company’s website had a page described as franchise support, with help covering site selection, store image design, software support, training, opening preparation, opening activities, and later operations coaching. For investors, merchants, and market readers, the practical issue is whether the same store cooperation model is being framed differently for regulators and merchants, and whether Dr. Plant can explain that difference clearly during the IPO process.
| Primary source | Wallstreetcn |
|---|---|
| Reported at | 2026-07-14T11:06:00.000Z |
| Topic | 公司 |
| Evidence limit | Reported facts are separated from interpretation; current prices and platform terms require independent verification. |
Evaluate BACKPACK for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BACKPACKWhy This Matters
The central question is simple: are Dr. Plant’s authorized stores ordinary distributor stores, franchise-like stores, or a distribution system that uses franchise-style merchant language? The supplied brief does not resolve that question. It shows why the wording matters.
As of the end of 2025, Dr. Plant had 4,268 offline chain stores. Only 480 were direct-operated terminal stores. The remaining 3,788 were authorized specialty stores opened by distributors. That makes the classification of the store network material to how readers understand the company’s business model.
In 2025, the distributor model generated RMB 1.402 billion, contributing more than 60% of revenue. When a model contributes that much, small differences in description can affect how readers assess control, risk sharing, revenue quality, and operational dependence.
What The Brief Says
The brief says Dr. Plant updated its IPO prospectus while continuing its push for the Shanghai main board. It also says the company’s 2025 revenue was RMB 2.167 billion, up only 0.53% year over year, while net profit attributable to shareholders was RMB 218 million, down by more than 10%.
The regulatory question in the first inquiry round focused on whether the sales model was a franchise model, considering factors such as trademark and brand use, operational control, whether stores paid franchise fees, profit source, and risk bearing. Dr. Plant denied that it had a franchise model.
Dr. Plant’s stated reason, according to the brief, was that it did not collect franchise fees, management fees, or brand-use fees from distributors, and that its profit mainly came from selling products to distributors. That is the company’s line separating the model from franchising.
The tension comes from the merchant-facing side. The brief says Dr. Plant’s website had a page named franchise support under a join-us area and offered support for store location evaluation, store image design, cashier software, pre-opening training, monthly training, pre-opening preparation, opening activities, and later operations coaching.
How To Read The Distributor Versus Franchise Question
A distributor label can make sense when a company sells products to independent distributors and earns profit from product sales rather than from joining fees or brand-use fees. That is the framing Dr. Plant used in the supplied brief.
A franchise-support label can raise questions when merchant-facing materials describe a highly standardized store system, including unified brand image, store setup support, training, operating assistance, and later coaching. Those features can look similar to familiar franchise formats even if the company says the fee structure is different.
The article should not jump from wording tension to a legal conclusion. The supplied brief does not establish that Dr. Plant violated disclosure rules. It establishes a question: why is one cooperation system described as distribution to regulators and as franchise support to potential merchants?
The decision-useful point is that readers should watch for the company’s explanation of control rights, fees, profit sources, risk bearing, store autonomy, inventory obligations, and post-opening operational requirements. Those details matter more than the label alone.
Business Pressure Behind The Wording
The disclosure question sits inside a broader growth challenge. The supplied brief says Dr. Plant’s 2025 revenue almost stood still, rising 0.53%, while net profit attributable to shareholders fell by more than 10%. That makes revenue quality and channel sustainability more important to evaluate.
The company is also smaller than the listed A-share cosmetics peers cited in the brief. The average 2025 revenue of Proya, Botanee, Marubi Biotechnology, and SYoung Group was RMB 6.098 billion, which the brief says was 2.8 times Dr. Plant’s revenue.
Dr. Plant has been tightening the offline network. By the end of 2025, authorized distributor stores numbered 3,788, down 336 from 2023. The brief says the company strengthened single-store cost-efficiency assessment and closed some lower-performing distributor stores after discussions with distributors.
At the same time, Dr. Plant has been trying to extend offline customers into online purchasing. The brief identifies Xiaozhi Mall as a key channel: customers can scan QR codes from stores or sales guides, bind with the relevant store, and choose pickup, store inventory use, or direct company delivery. The mall generated RMB 183 million in 2025, close to one-tenth of revenue.
Practical Checks For Readers
First, separate the issue into facts, company explanation, and unresolved questions. The facts in the supplied brief include store counts, revenue contribution, net profit movement, store reduction, and the stated difference between IPO wording and website merchant-facing wording. The company explanation is that it does not collect franchise-related fees and earns mainly through product sales to distributors. The unresolved question is whether that fully explains the merchant-facing franchise-support language.
Second, check whether future IPO materials define distributor obligations in operational detail. Important items include brand-use rules, store-opening approval, training obligations, pricing constraints, inventory risk, return rights, store closure responsibilities, and who bears operating losses.
Third, compare channel strategy with financial results. A falling or shrinking store base is not automatically bad if poor stores are being removed and profitability improves, but the supplied brief also says overall revenue growth was only 0.53%. Readers should look for evidence that online extensions and instant retail can offset slower offline expansion.
Fourth, avoid treating the issue as a ranking, approval forecast, or investment signal by itself. The supplied brief does not provide a final regulatory conclusion, listing result, or audited future performance path.
Risk Disclosure And Backpack Context
This article is not financial advice and does not account for any reader’s objectives, financial situation, jurisdiction, or risk tolerance. The supplied brief itself includes a market-risk warning. Readers should treat the Dr. Plant IPO issue as one company-news case study, not as a standalone basis for buying, selling, or trading anything.
If you use company-news events as part of a broader market workflow, keep the workflow disciplined: identify the factual source, list the open questions, separate legal classification from business quality, and avoid converting one headline into a trade thesis without independent checks.
Backpack context should remain practical and limited. If you already planned to evaluate Backpack separately, the supplied referral URL is BACKPACK official destination and the supplied code is 7nfg8123. Before using any trading venue or referral code, independently check access, terms, fees, asset support, custody assumptions, and local rules. No outcome, reward, ranking, registration, or trading result is claimed here.
Evaluate BACKPACK for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BACKPACKAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
What is the main issue in the Dr. Plant IPO brief?
The main issue is whether Dr. Plant’s store cooperation model is being described consistently. The brief says the company told regulators the model is distribution and denied a franchise model, while merchant-facing website language reportedly used franchise-support wording.
Does the supplied brief prove Dr. Plant violated disclosure rules?
No. The supplied brief raises a disclosure-consistency question but does not establish a regulatory finding, legal violation, or IPO outcome. The unresolved point is whether Dr. Plant can explain the difference between its regulatory wording and merchant-facing wording.
Why does the distributor network matter so much?
It matters because the distributor model contributed RMB 1.402 billion in 2025, more than 60% of revenue. Dr. Plant also had 3,788 authorized distributor stores at the end of 2025, compared with 480 direct-operated terminal stores.
What financial pressure does the brief describe?
The brief says Dr. Plant’s 2025 revenue was RMB 2.167 billion, up 0.53%, while net profit attributable to shareholders was RMB 218 million, down by more than 10%. It also says the company is smaller than selected listed A-share cosmetics peers by revenue.
What should readers check next?
Readers should watch for clearer explanations of store control, brand-use rules, fees, profit sources, risk bearing, inventory obligations, pricing coordination, training requirements, and store closure responsibilities. These details matter more than the label alone.
How does Backpack fit into this article?
Backpack is only a natural commercial context supplied with the brief. Readers who already planned to evaluate it can use the supplied referral URL and code, but they should independently check venue terms, fees, access, custody assumptions, and local rules before acting.