Why this exists. The APAC plan commits to two things in one document. It walks take-home to RMB 358 by 2028 by removing discount, and it builds distributor sales from zero to RMB 55.8M by 2029. Under a wholesale or licence model the brand does not set the take-home price, so those two commitments may be in tension, and nobody has measured it. This measures it on seven brands that already ran the experiment: four that operate every market themselves, and three that hand some markets to somebody else.
How to read it. Each row is one brand, each column one market, each cell the price of the same item there. The controls are company-operated everywhere, so the spread across their row is what the market does to a price. The treatment brands are direct in some markets and licensed in others, so their spread is the market plus whoever holds the brand. The difference between the two groups, at the bottom of the page, is the number this study exists to produce. Colour on each cell is who operates the brand in that market.
This is not the China study. China is a different question and lives on
its own map: there the market is fixed and the brands vary, the price bands are cut where Chinese coupon-stacking stops, and the argument turns on a line at RMB 350 that nothing in Hong Kong or Singapore goes near. The two studies share one data layer and one brand registry, so a price can never disagree with itself between them, but they do not share a frame.