The direct answer is that the issue is not just whether Dr. Plant calls its stores dealers or franchisees. Based only on the supplied brief, the core question is whether the same store cooperation system is being described consistently to regulators, merchants, and public-market readers. That matters because the dealer network contributed more than 60% of Dr. Plant's 2025 revenue, while the company was also reporting near-flat revenue growth and a decline in net profit.
| 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 WEEX for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review WEEXWhat Happened
Dr. Plant, formally Beijing Dr. Plant Cosmetics Co., Ltd. in the supplied brief, updated its IPO prospectus and continued its push for the Shanghai main board. The brief says the company's growth profile weakened in 2025, with revenue of 21.67 billion yuan, up only 0.53%, and net profit attributable to shareholders of 2.18 billion yuan, down by more than 10%.
The bigger disclosure question centers on the store model. At the end of 2025, Dr. Plant had 4,268 offline chain stores. Only 480 were direct-operated terminal stores, while 3,788 were authorized specialty stores opened by dealers. The dealer model generated 14.02 billion yuan in 2025 revenue, accounting for more than 60% of total revenue.
Why The Wording Matters
The supplied brief says regulators asked Dr. Plant to explain whether its sales model was a franchise model by considering factors such as trademark and brand use, operational control, franchise fees, profit sources, and risk bearing. Dr. Plant denied that it had a franchise model, pointing to the absence of franchise fees, management fees, and brand-use fees, and saying its profit mainly came from selling products to dealers.
The tension is that the same brief says Dr. Plant's website had a page called franchise support under a section about joining the company. That page was described as offering site selection evaluation, store image design, cashier software support, pre-opening training guidance, monthly training, opening preparation, opening activity support, and later operational coaching. Those supports cover much of a store's operating lifecycle, which is why the wording attracts attention.
Business Context
Dr. Plant's offline channel remains central to the company, but the brief says the company is also adjusting that network. Authorized dealer stores totaled 3,788 at the end of 2025, down by 336 compared with 2023. The stated reason was stronger single-store cost-effectiveness assessment and the closure of some lower-efficiency dealer stores after negotiation.
The company is also trying to extend offline customers online. The supplied brief describes Xiaozhi Mall as a key channel: customers can scan a store or sales associate QR code, bind to the related store, and choose either store pickup using store inventory or direct shipment from Dr. Plant. Xiaozhi Mall generated 1.83 billion yuan in 2025 revenue, close to 10% of total revenue.
Decision Checks
A reader should not treat the dealer-versus-franchise question as a label dispute only. The practical checks are whether the economic substance, operating control, merchant-facing promises, contract terms, fee structure, and risk allocation match the way the model is presented in IPO disclosure.
The same reader should also check whether channel restructuring improves quality without weakening scale. The brief says 2025 net margin rose to 10.02%, up 1.79 percentage points, while revenue growth was only 0.53% and net profit declined by more than 10%. That mix makes store efficiency, online conversion, and pricing balance more important than headline store count alone.
Evidence Limits
This article uses only the supplied event and brief as source material. It does not independently verify the updated prospectus, regulator inquiry documents, Dr. Plant's website pages, merchant contracts, store agreements, or later company responses.
The supplied brief raises the question of information-disclosure consistency, but it does not provide a final regulatory conclusion. The careful reading is that Dr. Plant may need to explain the difference between its IPO-facing dealer language and merchant-facing franchise support wording; the brief does not establish the final legal or listing outcome.
Risk And WEEX Context
This is company news, not a token-specific catalyst. The supplied event lists no affected crypto assets, and readers should not infer crypto price impact from this brief alone.
For market readers who track disclosure risk across sectors, the useful lesson is process-based: compare official filings, public marketing language, revenue concentration, and operating changes before acting on headlines. If you also monitor crypto markets on WEEX, use the supplied registration link only after checking eligibility, fees, platform terms, and your own risk limits: WEEX official destination. The supplied code is 7nfg8123.
Evaluate WEEX for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review WEEXAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
What is the main issue in Dr. Plant's IPO story?
The main issue is whether Dr. Plant's store cooperation model is being described consistently. The supplied brief says the company told regulators it was a dealer model, while its website used franchise support wording for potential partners.
Did Dr. Plant admit that it uses a franchise model?
No. According to the supplied brief, Dr. Plant denied that its sales model belongs to a franchise model. Its stated reasoning was that it does not charge franchise fees, management fees, or brand-use fees, and that its profit mainly comes from selling products to dealers.
Why does the dealer network matter so much?
It matters because the dealer model generated 14.02 billion yuan of revenue in 2025, more than 60% of the company's total revenue. Any uncertainty around that model is therefore material to how readers understand the IPO story.
What financial data should readers focus on first?
The supplied brief highlights 2025 revenue of 21.67 billion yuan, revenue growth of 0.53%, net profit attributable to shareholders of 2.18 billion yuan, a profit decline of more than 10%, and a net margin of 10.02%.
Is this article saying Dr. Plant's IPO will fail or succeed?
No. The supplied brief says the IPO is under attention and that Dr. Plant still needs to explain the consistency question. This article does not claim any listing outcome.
Is this WEEX news related to a specific crypto asset?
No affected crypto assets were listed in the supplied event. The relevance for WEEX readers is broader market discipline: disclosure consistency, channel concentration, and evidence limits matter across public-market stories.