白象也玩文字游戏？“多半”只是商标，消费者又被套路了？

Core Viewpoint - The recent controversy surrounding the "Duoban" trademark has raised significant trust issues for the Bai Xiang brand, a symbol of national pride in China, leading to consumer dissatisfaction and skepticism [1][5]. Group 1: Brand Trust and Consumer Perception - Bai Xiang's "Duoban" was initially perceived by consumers as a promise of increased quantity, but it was later revealed to be a registered trademark, causing confusion and disappointment among buyers [3][7]. - The company's response to the controversy, stating that "Duoban" is indeed a trademark and that product weights are as indicated on the packaging, has been met with criticism from consumers [3][5]. Group 2: Historical Context and Brand Image - Bai Xiang has historically been viewed as a symbol of national brands, having resisted acquisition by Japanese firms and positioning itself as "China's own instant noodle" amidst competition from major players like Kang Shifu and Uni-President [5]. - The brand has also been recognized for its social responsibility initiatives, such as donations during natural disasters and support for disabled employees, which contributed to its positive image as "the light of national goods" [5]. Group 3: Marketing Strategy and Innovation Challenges - The "Duoban" controversy reflects deeper issues within Bai Xiang, including a lack of innovation and reliance on marketing gimmicks rather than genuine product development [11][12]. - Bai Xiang's core product line, particularly the "Big Bone Noodle" series, is facing growth challenges, while competition in the traditional instant noodle market remains fierce, impacting profit margins [11]. - Recent product launches aimed at health-conscious consumers have not gained significant market share, indicating a struggle to adapt to changing consumer preferences [11]. Group 4: Legal and Ethical Considerations - While registering "Duoban" as a trademark is legally permissible, it raises ethical questions regarding brand integrity and consumer trust, as it appears to exploit legal loopholes rather than foster genuine customer relationships [12]. - The shift from a promise of "more for less" to a trademarked term has led to perceptions of deception, undermining the brand's long-standing reputation for quality and trustworthiness [12].