Core Viewpoint - The trend of celebrities giving out cash red envelopes has become a hot topic in the entertainment industry, serving as a marketing strategy to boost engagement and visibility for their projects [1][6][27] Group 1: Red Envelope Marketing - The practice of celebrities giving out red envelopes is not new but has evolved into a mainstream marketing tactic, replacing traditional promotional methods like selfies and thank-you notes [6][16] - Red envelope marketing is seen as a cost-effective way to generate buzz and increase viewer engagement, especially in a competitive landscape where attention spans are short [16][28] - Celebrities like Chen Zheyuan have set a precedent by giving away significant amounts, with his total red envelope distribution reaching approximately 488,000 yuan since 2023 [9][15] Group 2: Audience Engagement and Perception - The act of receiving a red envelope creates a sense of being "pampered" among viewers, leading to a temporary boost in goodwill towards the celebrities and their projects [6][17] - There is a growing concern that red envelopes may serve as "hush money," distracting audiences from the quality of the content itself [6][18] - The immediate gratification from red envelopes does not translate into long-term appreciation for the content, as viewers may still critique the quality of the shows [18][31] Group 3: Industry Dynamics - The rise of red envelope marketing reflects the industry's anxiety over viewer engagement and the pressure to stand out in a crowded market [28][31] - As more celebrities adopt this strategy, there is a risk of audience fatigue, leading to diminishing returns on such marketing efforts [29][31] - The industry may need to shift focus from monetary incentives to improving content quality to sustain viewer interest and loyalty [31]

Core Viewpoint - The conflict between Zhao Lusi and her management company, Galaxy Cool Entertainment, has escalated publicly, highlighting issues of contract disputes, economic disagreements, and power struggles within the entertainment industry [1][10][12]. Group 1: Background and Development - The conflict has roots dating back to early 2023, with Zhao Lusi's health issues and subsequent work disruptions leading to rising tensions [5][6]. - Zhao Lusi's public accusations against Galaxy Cool Entertainment include claims of contract entrapment, financial exploitation, and emotional manipulation [10][11]. - The situation intensified after Zhao Lusi's social media changes and her revealing mental health struggles, culminating in a public outcry against the company [9][10][17]. Group 2: Company and Artist Dynamics - Galaxy Cool Entertainment has heavily relied on Zhao Lusi, who has become a significant revenue source, leading to an imbalanced profit-sharing model [23][24]. - The company’s management practices have been criticized for being overly controlling, particularly after the departure of its former CEO, which exacerbated the issues [25][26]. - The lack of adequate support for Zhao Lusi's mental health and career development has been a significant factor in the ongoing conflict [26][27]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The situation reflects a broader trend in the entertainment industry where artists frequently clash with management companies over contract terms and profit distribution [29][31]. - The need for a restructured profit-sharing model that respects artists' rights and contributions is emphasized as a potential solution to prevent similar conflicts in the future [31][32]. - The case of Zhao Lusi serves as a cautionary tale for both artists and management companies about the importance of equitable partnerships and the risks of exploitative practices [30][34].

Core Viewpoint - The conflict between Zhao Lusi and her agency, Galaxy Cool Entertainment, has escalated, with Zhao accusing the agency of financial misconduct and neglecting her mental health during her treatment for severe anxiety and depression [1][4][5]. Group 1: Zhao Lusi's Allegations - Zhao Lusi claims that Galaxy Cool Entertainment deducted 2.05 million yuan from her studio account for canceled endorsements, despite the agency's prior commitment to cover these losses [1][6]. - She has expressed frustration over the agency's failure to resolve issues related to her work and the lack of support from her team during her health struggles [1][6]. - Zhao has indicated that she will escalate the matter to the police if a resolution is not reached [1]. Group 2: Galaxy Cool Entertainment's Response - Galaxy Cool Entertainment responded by stating they were shocked by Zhao's allegations and denied any wrongdoing, emphasizing their concern for her health and well-being [4][5]. - The agency highlighted that they have been under significant pressure and have made efforts to minimize negative impacts while respecting Zhao's reasonable requests [4][5]. - They urged Zhao to refrain from making vague public statements that could mislead the public [4]. Group 3: Legal and Operational Implications - Legal experts suggest that if Galaxy Cool Entertainment claims the deduction was for endorsement losses, they must prove a direct causal relationship between Zhao's actions and the financial losses incurred [6]. - The operational dynamics between Zhao and the agency are under scrutiny, particularly regarding the management of her studio and the distribution of staff responsibilities [7]. - The ongoing conflict reflects deeper issues within the entertainment industry regarding artist management and agency relationships, especially as artists gain more leverage in negotiations [14][16]. Group 4: Historical Context and Industry Dynamics - The relationship between Zhao Lusi and Galaxy Cool Entertainment has been strained for some time, with Zhao previously disclosing her struggles with depression linked to past incidents with the agency [9][10]. - Galaxy Cool Entertainment has historically relied on Zhao as a key asset, particularly in their transition to focusing on talent management amid changing market conditions [10][11]. - The agency's connection to larger entities like Alibaba has been noted, but the depth of this relationship is questioned, especially after recent changes in ownership and partnerships [11][12].