The ancient motto of Tong Ren Tang, passed down for centuries, states: "Although preparation is complex, we dare not spare effort; although ingredients are costly, we dare not reduce quality." However, a product recently labeled "Beijing Tong Ren Tang 99% High-Purity Antarctic Krill Oil," which claimed a phospholipid content of 43%, was tested and found to contain zero phospholipids, shocking many consumers who trust the historic brand and shattering their positive perception of this time-honored name.
The bewildering array of Tong Ren Tang products on the market often do not originate from the "Tong Ren Tang" of popular imagination. Excessive brand licensing acts as a double-edged sword; while it has brought significant short-term commercial benefits to the centuries-old brand, its long-term drawbacks are gradually eroding brand credibility. Although the listed company Beijing Tong Ren Tang Co., Ltd. has issued a clarification announcement, it may struggle to remain entirely unaffected by the fallout.
The krill oil product's phospholipid content being zero highlights how brand licensing coupled with poor management is causing the brand power of this historic name to decline. The Tong Ren Tang branded product you purchase may merely be a licensed product.
On December 11, the Shanghai Consumer Council published an article on its official WeChat account stating that a product labeled "Beijing Tong Ren Tang 99% High-Purity Antarctic Krill Oil" had webpage claims of "high content," "Chilean imported raw materials," "highly purified," and "1 capsule ≈ 100 krill," with a marked phospholipid value of 43%, making it appear a high-quality product. However, test results showed the product's phospholipid content was zero, indicating fraudulent practices. This Antarctic krill oil softgel, retailing for several dozen yuan, had an extremely low factory price, representing a severe disconnect between price and value.
On the packaging of the implicated krill oil product, the characters "北京同仁堂" (Beijing Tong Ren Tang) are exceptionally prominent, and it uses a double-dragon pattern highly similar to Beijing Tong Ren Tang's core trademark, easily misleading consumers into believing it is a direct product of Beijing Tong Ren Tang. Upon closer inspection, however, it is actually a product under the distributor "Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.," which uses the "Zhen Huang" trademark, different from the "Tong Ren Tang double-dragon trademark."
Subsequently, on December 20, the time-honored brand Beijing Tong Ren Tang issued an apology statement, bringing the widely discussed "Antarctic Krill Oil" incident to the forefront, and stated it would continue to push for the recall and removal of the implicated products by Sichuan Health. Equity penetration reveals that the involved Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical is 51% owned by Beijing Tong Ren Tang Health Pharmaceutical, making it a grandchild company of China Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Group) Co., Ltd.
The product quality issue points directly to brand licensing. The aforementioned "Antarctic Krill Oil" was produced by contract manufacturer Anhui Habor Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and sold by Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. after brand licensing. Although a Tong Ren Tang representative emphasized in responses to media that the brand license for the involved company had expired on November 30, 2021, and was not renewed.
Tong Ren Tang's brand licensing chaos has formed a vast and intricate "Tong Ren Tang universe" within its ecosystem. On major e-commerce platforms, searching for "北京同仁堂" yields thousands of products ranging from rose tea and pear syrup to foot bath packs, heat patches, and various dietary supplements, mostly produced by companies like "Beijing Tong Ren Tang Xing'an Health Technology" or "Beijing Tong Ren Tang (Sichuan) Health Pharmaceutical." While these companies belong to the Tong Ren Tang Group, they are not the same entity as the publicly listed Beijing Tong Ren Tang Co., Ltd., which holds the well-known "Tong Ren Tang double-dragon trademark."
The complex licensing system is the root of the problem. Disclosures indicate that Tong Ren Tang Group, through direct or indirect shareholding, controls an extensive network of over hundreds of enterprises. The Group licenses the "Tong Ren Tang" trademark for use by numerous subordinate companies within its system, which in turn register their own trademarks like "Zhen Huang" and "Nei Ting Shang Yong" for the licensed production of specific products.
The brand licensing model, like a double-edged sword, brings short-term scale expansion while continuously eroding Tong Ren Tang's most valuable asset—brand credibility—from within. The chaotic licensing has left consumers confused. "Is this Tong Ren Tang the real Tong Ren Tang?" has become a daily question for staff at Beijing Tong Ren Tang's flagship store. This blurring of brand identity directly damages consumer trust.
Can the listed company Tong Ren Tang remain unscathed? It faces pressure on both its stock price and performance, while its inventory situation is also concerning. Such incidents expose potential vulnerabilities of "emphasizing licensing over management" within the company's vast group-operated, brand-licensing model, which continuously depletes consumer trust in the centuries-old brand and causes long-term damage to intangible brand assets. Although the listed Tong Ren Tang has issued a clarification, it may find it difficult to "emerge unscathed," as the erosion of brand credibility is also impacting it.
Notably, the listed company Tong Ren Tang has indeed not been having an "easy" time in recent years, experiencing a downturn in both its stock price and financial performance. Regarding stock price performance, as of December 26, 2025, the company's share price closed at 32.25 yuan per share, down over 45% from its 2023 high.
In terms of financial performance, Tong Ren Tang's growth momentum appears fatigued. For the first three quarters of this year, the company achieved operating revenue of 13.308 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 3.70%; net profit attributable to shareholders of the listed company was 1.178 billion yuan, a decline of 12.78% year-on-year. Particularly noteworthy is that the single third-quarter performance decline was more severe, with revenue falling 12.76% year-on-year to 3.539 billion yuan and net profit plummeting 45% year-on-year.
Beyond short-term financial pressures, Tong Ren Tang faces deeper challenges in its strategic expansion path and internal governance. In recent years, against the backdrop of overall industry contraction, the company chose to counter-trend expand its store network. In 2024, Tong Ren Tang's net increase in stores reached 250, bringing the total number of stores by year-end to 1,251, a staggering increase of 25.0% year-on-year. However, this rapid scale expansion did not drive overall sales growth but was accompanied by a series of operational efficiency issues. As of the end of September 2025, the company's inventory book balance had reached approximately 11.125 billion yuan, with inventory comprising 35% of assets, and inventory turnover days extended to 424.4 days.
Comments