Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the dynamics of online disputes, categorizing them into three main causes: interest-based arguments, profit-related conflicts, and ideological disagreements. It emphasizes the importance of addressing profit-related issues promptly to mitigate crises faced by companies [2][10][41]. Group 1: Interest-Based Arguments - Interest-based disputes often arise from personal preferences, such as sports teams or food tastes, and tend to be less harmful. However, when these interests evolve into a form of fanaticism, they can lead to significant consequences for brands [4][6][8]. - The article highlights the distinction between casual interest disputes and those that escalate into more serious conflicts, particularly in the context of brand loyalty and fan culture [9][42]. Group 2: Profit-Related Conflicts - Profit-related disputes are identified as a central issue for companies, where the public feels their interests are compromised. Companies must provide compensation to address these grievances effectively [11][39]. - The concept of "sliding and kneeling" is introduced, where companies must act quickly (sliding) and provide tangible compensation (kneeling) to resolve crises. This approach is crucial for maintaining public trust [16][17][26]. - The article provides examples from Haidilao's crisis management, illustrating how timely apologies and corrective measures can mitigate damage. In the 2017 "mouse incident," Haidilao's prompt response was praised, while the 2025 "urine incident" required more extensive compensation to regain customer trust [19][25][30]. Group 3: Ideological Disagreements - Ideological disputes are more complex and often unresolvable, as they stem from deep-seated beliefs rather than interests or profits. Companies facing such conflicts may need to endure the backlash without expecting a resolution [41][42]. - The article cautions companies to be wary of engaging in ideological narratives, as these can lead to significant reputational risks and are often beyond their control [45].

Core Viewpoint - The recent incident involving a customer injury at Haidilao has raised significant public concern and scrutiny towards the company's safety practices and customer service response [1][2][4]. Group 1: Incident Details - A customer, Ms. Chen, reported an electric shock injury while dining at a Haidilao location in Suzhou, leading to nerve damage and requiring two to three months of rehabilitation [2][3]. - Initial responses from Haidilao management suggested that the incident was due to Ms. Chen's clothing causing static electricity, which she disputed [2][3]. - Haidilao's compensation offer included a 1,000 yuan voucher and coverage of recent medical expenses, which Ms. Chen found insufficient [2][3]. Group 2: Company Response and Legal Implications - Haidilao conducted internal checks and found no electrical issues at the sauce station where the incident occurred, but has engaged third-party professionals for further investigation [3][4]. - Legal experts indicated that Haidilao may bear responsibility if it cannot prove it provided a safe dining environment, especially if the sauce station is found to have safety hazards [3][4]. Group 3: Brand Impact and ESG Rating - The incident poses a serious challenge to Haidilao's brand image and consumer trust, particularly given previous food safety issues [4][5]. - Haidilao's ESG rating has dropped from A to BBB, reflecting significant deficiencies in environmental, social, and governance practices compared to industry standards [5]. - Recent complaints on consumer platforms highlight ongoing issues with food quality and service, further impacting the company's reputation [5][6]. Group 4: Financial Performance - Haidilao's revenue for 2024 was reported at 42.755 billion yuan, with a growth rate of 3.14%, significantly lower than the previous year's 33.55% [6]. - The net profit for 2024 was 4.7 billion yuan, showing a growth of 4.65%, but this is a stark decline from the previous year's 227.33% increase [6]. - The restaurant's turnover rate improved to 4.1 times per day, but remains below the pre-pandemic level of 4.8 times [6].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving a customer urinating in a hot pot at Haidilao has led the company to issue an apology and compensation, highlighting operational issues within the company [1][6]. Compensation and Apology - On March 12, 2025, Haidilao apologized and announced full refunds for 4,109 customers who dined at the Shanghai Bund location between February 24 and March 8, along with additional cash compensation amounting to ten times the order value [1][2]. - The total compensation is reported to exceed 10 million yuan [2]. Incident Details - The "urination incident" originated from a video posted online showing a man urinating into a Haidilao hot pot [3]. - On February 24, two men urinated into the hot pot at the Shanghai Bund store, and the management had no prior contingency plans for such incidents, leading to a delayed response [4]. - Haidilao reported that it took time to identify the incident's location and involved local police for assistance, confirming the incident occurred at their Shanghai Bund store [5]. Operational Issues - The incident has exposed operational weaknesses within Haidilao, particularly in crisis management and public relations [6]. - The company's legal department's response on March 8 shifted the focus from the perpetrators to those spreading the video, which resulted in negative public backlash [7][8]. - There appears to be a lack of unified strategy within the company regarding external communication [9]. Management and Future Considerations - Haidilao acknowledged the challenge of quickly identifying the incident's location due to the absence of surveillance in private dining rooms [10]. - Suggestions for improvement include marking private rooms or enhancing decor to aid in management and customer safety [11]. - Despite the incident, the company is seen as a victim and has potential for growth in the competitive restaurant market [11].

可能会有扛不住的供应商适度让利妥协、可能会有制造商向外转移、可能会有美国本土制造商依靠关税保护发展起来、也可能要靠涨价让美国老百姓承担 一部分，这是一个多角度的、综合的、动态的平衡调整，谁更弱势一点，谁就要多让一些。 之前还有传闻美国要取消对华最惠国待遇，这个短期内应该不会发生，因为我算过如果真取消了，对华关税就会从加权平均30%增加到68%，那样就疯 了，中美两边恐怕都承受不起。 沃尔玛被商务部约谈了，原因是沃尔玛之前要求中国供应商让利降价。 不用想，这肯定是美国关税带来的影响。沃尔玛的核心竞争力是低价商品，面对特朗普政府附加的关税，沃尔玛不愿意商品涨价，就想办法给供应商施 压。 沃尔玛是渠道巨头，绝大多数供应商在它们面前都很弱势，所以这个时候中国政府要站出来统一战线，维护国内供应商的利益。 其实这件事要按照网民们开心的剧本，最简单的处理办法就是严词拒绝，打回去，让沃尔玛把关税涨的那部分加到美国的零售价上，让美国老百姓承受代 价，让他们知道是因为特朗普才多花了这笔钱。 但现实中沃尔玛不可能这么处理，否则它们在美国也别混了。它们会综合多角度的化解关税代来的冲击，向中国供应商压价只是方案之一，接下来肯定还 会寻 ...