歌手苏醒在《湾区升明月》晚会上翻车了。 先说个直觉：苏醒翻车能冲上热搜，是因为比起完美的舞台，观众更爱看意外。 唱功再好，也就是"嗯，不错"；可一旦跑调破音，那就是"卧槽，好笑"。你想啊，短视频时代，什么最 容易火？ 那种平平无奇的稳健表现吗？肯定不是。网友喜欢看"破了个大防"的情节，翻车本身属于流量密码。 苏醒这次，刚好踩中了"出圈按钮"。 他的回应和网友吃瓜一样，站在网友一面，看完后觉得：我唱得好差，这一下，大家的心态立马从"我 要吐槽"变成"哈哈哈哈算了"。 唱《夜空中最亮的星》，全开麦，破音、跑调、和声混乱，效果堪比 KTV 团建。片段一出，立马冲上 热搜。 有意思的是，他没找什么技术理由，自嘲一句"唱得难听且好笑"；这一下，舆论反而缓和了。 我刷了下抖音评论区，有人笑他翻车，有人夸他敢真唱，甚至有人说，这比假唱强多了。 这事儿让我想到一个问题： 为什么观众对他"翻车"这么买账？甚至在某种程度上，还能转化成好感？背后折射的逻辑，对企业危机 传播有什么启发？ 这就是态度的力量。 心理学早就证明过，幽默能缓解紧张、降低敌意；换句话说，当一个人敢自黑，你反而懒得再黑他了。 因为他比你自己骂得还狠，你还能说什 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company Xibei is facing public backlash due to a controversial article published on its official WeChat account, which has led to negative reactions from netizens [1][8]. Group 1: Article Content and Public Reaction - The article titled "7-year-old Maomao: I thought I would never eat Xibei again" tells a sentimental story from the perspective of a child, Maomao, who insists on dining at Xibei despite his mother's concerns about recent online criticism [1][6]. - The article was perceived as overly emotional and outdated in terms of public relations strategy, potentially alienating consumers rather than resonating with them [8]. - Xibei has since deleted the article, indicating a recognition of the backlash it received [1]. Group 2: Public Relations Strategy - The article's release during a time of scrutiny over Xibei's food quality and pricing was seen as a misstep; effective public relations should focus on actions rather than emotional appeals [8][9]. - The company’s internal communication strategy may have been misaligned with external perceptions, as the article was intended for internal morale but was visible to the public [8]. - A more consumer-focused approach, understanding the criticisms and addressing them directly, could have mitigated the backlash and improved the company's public image [9]. Group 3: Future Considerations - The company needs to prioritize product quality and service to regain consumer trust, rather than relying on emotional narratives [9]. - A shift in focus from self-referential communication to understanding consumer perspectives is essential for effective crisis management [9].

Core Insights - The incident involving Luo Yonghao's criticism of Xibei's pre-made dishes highlights a trust crisis in the prepared food sector and inadequate corporate response to public sentiment [3][4] - Xibei's brand trust among middle-class consumers significantly declined, with daily revenue dropping over 3 million yuan during the controversy [1][4] Group 1: Event Overview - The timeline of the incident shows a progression from initial criticism to a full-blown crisis, with Xibei's responses exacerbating the situation [4] - Xibei's attempts to clarify its position and defend its practices were met with further scrutiny, leading to a negative public perception [4][10] Group 2: Missteps in Crisis Management - Xibei's reliance on legal arguments instead of empathetic communication failed to address consumer concerns effectively [5][6] - The founder's emotional responses turned product disputes into personal conflicts, distracting from the core issues consumers cared about [7] - Xibei's defensive actions, such as showcasing receipts and opening kitchens, did not resolve the underlying problems and instead led to more negative revelations [9] - Emphasizing corporate advantages without addressing consumer demands resulted in a disconnect between the brand and its audience [10] Group 3: Effective Crisis Response Strategies - A structured response plan with a three-tiered alert system can help manage crises more effectively [11][12] - The "3A communication principle" emphasizes acknowledgment, apology, and action to rebuild trust [13] - Identifying and addressing core consumer concerns can transform a crisis into an opportunity for positive engagement [16] Group 4: Long-term Trust Restoration - Establishing transparent mechanisms for ingredient sourcing and preparation can enhance consumer trust [18] - A unified communication strategy with designated spokespersons can prevent emotional responses from leadership [19] - Conducting thorough post-crisis reviews can help organizations learn and improve future responses [20] Group 5: Industry Implications - The incident underscores the importance of transparency in the prepared food industry, advocating for clear labeling and consumer education [33] - Building industry standards collaboratively can enhance trust and accountability among brands [35] - Trust is a vital intangible asset for brands, necessitating ongoing efforts to maintain and restore it [36][37]

Group 1 - The core issue is not the pre-made dishes themselves, but the brand's arrogance and flippancy in response to consumer concerns, which has led to a public relations disaster [1][2] - Consumers today seek equal dialogue with brands rather than being passive recipients, highlighting the importance of transparency and honesty in communication [2][16] - Effective crisis management requires genuine engagement with consumer concerns rather than superficial apologies or humor that may trivialize the issue [1][2] Group 2 - The concept of "trust economy" in the restaurant industry emphasizes that consumers are willing to pay a premium for brands that communicate honestly and transparently [2] - Public relations should be integrated into the brand's daily operations rather than being a reactive measure to crises [2][13] - The importance of understanding consumer psychology and the shift towards a more participatory relationship between brands and consumers is critical for modern marketing strategies [16][26]

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding pre-prepared dishes involving Luo Yonghao and Xibei highlights the need for transparency and proper crisis management in the food industry [2][5]. Group 1: Pre-prepared Dishes - Pre-prepared dishes are a legitimate product of food industrialization, and educating consumers about them can lead to better understanding and acceptance [2]. - The acceptance of pre-prepared dishes varies by restaurant type; high-end establishments typically prioritize fresh cooking, while standardized fast food chains may rely on pre-prepared options [3]. Group 2: Crisis Management - Xibei's crisis management was inadequate, as the founder engaged in a personal battle with Luo Yonghao instead of employing a professional PR team to handle the situation [5]. - The decision to open the kitchen for public inspection backfired, providing Luo Yonghao with further ammunition to criticize Xibei's use of pre-prepared dishes [5]. - Xibei's apology letter, while detailed with nine corrective measures, raised further questions among consumers regarding the quality of ingredients previously used, such as the switch from genetically modified soybean oil [6]. Group 3: Recommendations for Xibei - Moving forward, Xibei should focus on internal improvements, unify communication strategies, and engage professional legal and consulting teams to navigate the crisis effectively [6].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding pre-prepared dishes involving Luo Yonghao and Xibei highlights the need for transparency and consumer education regarding the food industry, while also showcasing Xibei's inadequate crisis management strategies [3][4][6]. Group 1: Pre-prepared Dishes - Pre-prepared dishes are a legitimate product of food industrialization and can be accepted by consumers if transparency and quality ingredients are ensured [3]. - The acceptance of pre-prepared dishes varies by restaurant type; high-end establishments should prioritize freshly made dishes, while standardized fast food chains may rely on pre-prepared options [4]. Group 2: Crisis Management - Xibei's crisis management was ineffective, as the founder engaged in a personal battle with Luo Yonghao instead of employing a professional PR team to handle the situation [6]. - The decision to open the kitchen for public inspection backfired, exposing pre-prepared ingredients and providing Luo Yonghao with ammunition for further criticism [6]. - Xibei's apology letter listed nine specific corrective measures, but some of these raised further questions among consumers regarding the quality and sourcing of ingredients used previously [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Group 3: Recommendations for Xibei - Moving forward, Xibei should focus on internal improvements, maintain a unified communication strategy, and engage professional legal and consulting teams to navigate the crisis effectively [15].

Group 1 - The article emphasizes the importance of crisis public relations (PR) and how it has become a crucial aspect for companies, especially in light of recent events involving companies like Xibei [1][4] - It argues that many companies lack basic PR knowledge and often do not invest in proper PR management, leading to significant issues when crises arise [4][14] - The author critiques the crisis PR industry, suggesting it often operates on a model of high expectations but low delivery, akin to a pseudoscience [2][5] Group 2 - A detailed internal assessment, referred to as a "health check report," is deemed essential for understanding the company's situation during a crisis [6][9] - The report should identify weaknesses, external perceptions, and potential legal risks, which are critical for formulating a response strategy [9][10] - The article stresses that companies should not rush their responses to crises, as hasty actions can exacerbate the situation [8][12] Group 3 - The article suggests that companies should have a dedicated PR professional who understands the nuances of crisis management, rather than relying on external consultants [14][15] - It highlights the need for internal collaboration between the CEO and the PR VP to develop a comprehensive response plan [15][16] - The author notes that early detection of issues is beneficial, as it allows for quicker and less costly remediation [17]

Core Viewpoint - The recent controversy involving Xibei and Luo Yonghao has escalated from a simple criticism of food quality into a public spectacle, highlighting significant flaws in brand management and crisis response strategies [1][2]. Group 1: Brand Response and Crisis Management - The initial response from Yu Donglai, founder of Pang Donglai, was to support Xibei but was quickly retracted after facing backlash, demonstrating poor crisis management [1][2]. - Hua Yu Hua, a long-term strategic partner of Xibei, took a more active role in defending the brand, even visiting a Xibei location to show support, but their efforts backfired as transparency revealed the use of pre-made dishes [3][5]. - The public relations strategy employed by Hua Yu Hua failed to address the core issue of pre-made dishes, instead focusing on denying the claims, which led to further criticism [9][13]. Group 2: Consumer Sentiment and Market Dynamics - Luo Yonghao's initial comment about the food quality resonated with consumers, as he articulated sentiments that many felt but were afraid to express, highlighting a disconnect between consumer expectations and brand pricing strategies [9][10]. - The incident underscores a broader issue in the Chinese market where companies often prioritize profit over genuine customer satisfaction, leading to a demand for outspoken figures like Luo Yonghao who challenge the status quo [10]. Group 3: Marketing and Brand Strategy - Hua Yu Hua's approach to marketing, which emphasizes "super symbols" and "super creativity," was ironically undermined by their handling of the crisis, turning their strategy into a source of ridicule [13]. - The incident illustrates the importance of addressing consumer concerns directly rather than deflecting blame, as effective marketing should involve genuine engagement with customer feedback [13].

Core Viewpoint - The viral "盖章挑战" (Stamp Challenge) involving Wahaha's bottle caps reflects a blend of brand trust and management concerns, highlighting the evolving interaction between brands and young consumers in the digital age [1][3][9] Group 1: Brand Interaction and Marketing - The phenomenon showcases a shift in traditional marketing, where user-generated content can drive brand visibility, as seen with Wahaha's unexpected popularity stemming from its long-standing national recognition [3][4] - The success of the "秃头大卫" (Bald David) collaboration by another brand illustrates how playful marketing can resonate with younger consumers, indicating a willingness to engage with "non-serious marketing" [3][9] Group 2: Trust and Consumer Sentiment - The incident raises concerns about trust erosion, as past controversies have shown that consumer trust can be fragile, especially when brands are perceived to be involved in misleading practices [4][8] - The humorous engagement from consumers reflects a deeper frustration with bureaucratic processes, particularly regarding internship documentation, indicating a societal sentiment that brands need to address [5][7] Group 3: Crisis Management and Brand Strategy - Effective crisis management requires empathy and proactive solutions, suggesting that Wahaha could leverage this viral moment to enhance its brand image and connect with younger audiences through creative initiatives [7][9] - The ongoing challenges faced by Wahaha under new leadership highlight the importance of maintaining brand credibility, as repeated missteps can undermine decades of trust built with consumers [8][9] Group 4: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The playful use of company seals raises legal concerns, as even humorous applications can lead to serious legal repercussions, emphasizing the need for brands to navigate the fine line between creativity and legality [7][9] - The incident serves as a reminder that while humor can alleviate stress, it should not cross ethical boundaries, reinforcing the idea that genuine workplace recognition cannot be substituted with playful antics [9]

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the advertisement for "Peach and Li Egg Mooncake" has highlighted the marketing missteps of the company, leading to a public apology and the removal of the ad [2][6][7]. Financial Performance - In the first half of 2025, the company's revenue was approximately 2.6 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 13.55%, while the net profit attributable to shareholders was around 200 million yuan, down nearly 30% [3][8]. - The company has faced declining profitability, with net profits decreasing for four consecutive years from 2021 to 2024 [2][8]. - Despite the financial pressures, the company has maintained a high cash dividend payout, distributing a total of 4.36 billion yuan in cash dividends since its IPO, with an average payout ratio of 70.24% [3][10]. Marketing and Brand Image - The controversial advertisement claimed that those who dislike five-nut mooncakes are simply "young and have not yet experienced the hardships of life," which sparked backlash from consumers [2][6][7]. - Following the backlash, the company issued an apology and stated that the advertisement was part of an internal creative process involving employees of various ages [7]. - The incident has been viewed by some analysts as a successful crisis management effort, as it increased awareness of the "Peach and Li Egg Mooncake" among consumers [7]. Product and Innovation Challenges - The company's product structure is considered narrow, primarily focusing on short-shelf-life bread, with seasonal products like mooncakes contributing to revenue fluctuations [8][9]. - There has been a noted decline in research and development investment, with R&D expenses dropping to 10.66 million yuan in the first half of 2025 from higher amounts in previous years [9].